In re Interest of Victor L. , 309 Neb. 21 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    06/08/2021 09:09 AM CDT
    - 21 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    In re Interest of Victor L., a child
    under 18 years of age.
    State of Nebraska, appellant, v.
    Victor L., appellee.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed April 23, 2021.    No. S-20-312.
    1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. Ordinarily, an appellate court
    reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion
    independent of the juvenile court’s findings.
    2. Juvenile Courts: Mental Competency: Appeal and Error. A juve-
    nile court’s determination that a juvenile petition should be dismissed
    because the juvenile lacks competency to participate in the proceed-
    ings involves the sort of discretion that warrants review de novo on the
    record for an abuse of discretion.
    3. Judgments: Words and Phrases. An abuse of discretion occurs when a
    trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unrea-
    sonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason,
    and evidence.
    4. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation presents a question
    of law, on which an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion
    independent of the determination reached by the court below.
    5. Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. In a juvenile case,
    as in any other appeal, before reaching the legal issues presented for
    review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has
    jurisdiction over the matter before it.
    6. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. A substantial right is affected if an
    order affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as diminishing a
    claim or defense that was available to the appellant prior to the order
    from which the appeal is taken.
    7. Juvenile Courts: Minors: Final Orders: Jurisdiction. The State’s
    right in juvenile proceedings is derived from its parens patriae interest.
    - 22 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    The State’s substantial right is affected when an order dismisses a juve-
    nile proceeding in its entirety, with no leave to amend, and the State
    is thus foreclosed from pursuing adjudication and disposition on the
    grounds alleged.
    8.   Statutes: Legislature: Public Policy. It is the Legislature’s function
    through the enactment of statutes to declare what is the law and pub-
    lic policy.
    9.   Statutes: Legislature: Intent. In construing a statute, a court must
    determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature
    as ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered in its
    plain, ordinary, and popular sense.
    10.   Statutes. A court must give effect to all parts of a statute, and if it can
    be avoided, no word, clause, or sentence will be rejected as superfluous
    or meaningless.
    11.   Juvenile Courts: Minors. The foremost purpose and objective of the
    Nebraska Juvenile Code is to promote and protect the juvenile’s best
    interests, and the Nebraska Juvenile Code must be liberally construed to
    serve the best interests of juveniles who fall within it.
    12.   Juvenile Courts: Minors: Mental Competency: Public Policy. The
    plain language of 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-258
     (Reissue 2016) recognizes,
    as a matter of public policy, that juveniles accused of delinquency and
    status offenses have a statutory right to be competent to participate in
    adjudication proceedings.
    13.   Juvenile Courts: Minors: Mental Competency: Legislature: Intent.
    Because the Legislature has established a juvenile’s statutory right to
    be competent to participate in adjudication proceedings, but it has not
    mandated a specific procedure for enforcing or protecting that right, it
    intended to leave the procedure to the sound discretion of the juvenile
    court, based on the best interests of the juvenile.
    14.   Juvenile Courts: Minors: Mental Competency. An appropriate judi-
    cial procedure for determining whether preadjudication dismissal is
    in the best interests of an incompetent juvenile will generally include
    consideration of (1) the nature and extent of the juvenile’s incompe-
    tency and the impact it may have on the juvenile’s meaningful exercise
    of other adjudicatory rights, (2) the evaluation report required by 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-258
    (3) (Reissue 2016) and any other competent evidence
    assessing the juvenile’s needs and making recommendations for the
    juvenile’s continuous and long-term care, (3) the juvenile’s statutory
    right to be competent while participating in adjudication proceedings,
    and (4) the future treatment and rehabilitation of the juvenile in the
    event of an adjudication. The benchmark of the determination is the
    protection of the best interests of the incompetent juvenile.
    - 23 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County:
    Chad M. Brown, Judge. Affirmed.
    Natalie Killion, Deputy Douglas County Attorney, and
    Rachel Lowe, Senior Certified Law Student, for appellant.
    Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, and
    Leigh A. Ellis for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
    Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
    Stacy, J.
    The State filed a petition in the separate juvenile court
    of Douglas County, Nebraska, alleging Victor L. had been
    habitually truant from school and fell within the meaning of
    
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247
    (3)(b) (Reissue 2016). Victor moved
    to dismiss the petition, alleging he was not competent to be
    adjudicated. Following a court-ordered competency evalua-
    tion, the juvenile court found Victor was not competent and
    dismissed the petition. The State timely appealed, and we
    moved this case to our docket on our own motion. 1 On this
    record, we affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Victor was born in December 2004 and resides with his
    mother in Douglas County, Nebraska. During the 2018-19
    school year, Victor was enrolled at a local middle school.
    Truancy Petition
    In April 2019, the State filed a petition against Victor in
    the separate juvenile court of Douglas County, alleging he
    had not attended school for more than 20 days during the cur-
    rent school year and therefore was habitually truant within the
    meaning of § 43-247(3)(b). The court appointed counsel to
    represent Victor in the proceeding.
    1
    See 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106
     (Reissue 2014 & Cum. Supp. 2018).
    - 24 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    Motion to Dismiss and
    Competency Evaluation
    Prior to the adjudication hearing, Victor moved to dismiss
    the truancy petition, alleging he was “incompetent to stand
    trial.” Victor’s motion referred to a 2018 competency evalua­
    tion which had concluded he was not competent “‘due to
    cognitive deficits, limited legal understanding, and emotional
    [lability].’” The 2018 competency evaluation is not in our
    record, but other information in the record suggests it was
    a court-ordered evaluation in an unrelated delinquency pro-
    ceeding. In the instant proceeding, Victor’s motion to dismiss
    alleged generally that adjudicative competency was one of the
    “essential requirements of due process and fair treatment” to
    which a juvenile is entitled and that “adjudication of an incom-
    petent juvenile violates due process of law.”
    The motion to dismiss was taken up at a hearing on
    September 10, 2019. That hearing was not included in our bill
    of exceptions, but the court’s written order indicates Victor
    appeared for the hearing with his counsel and Victor’s mother
    was present pro se. A single unidentified exhibit was offered,
    which is not in our record. Based on the evidence adduced,
    the court continued the scheduled adjudication hearing and
    ordered Victor to undergo a new competency evaluation.
    Probation was appointed on a preadjudicative basis to assist
    with that evaluation. 2
    At a competency review hearing on December 17, 2019,
    the court received into evidence a “Juvenile Adjudicative
    Competency Evaluation” report authored by Kari Perez, Ph.D.
    In the report, Perez described Victor’s complicated mental
    health history, which included prior hospitalizations for sui-
    cidal ideation, medication noncompliance, and a long history
    of “‘school avoidance.’” Testing revealed Victor’s full-scale
    2
    See 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-258
    (2)(b) (Reissue 2016) (authorizing court
    to order competency evaluation to be arranged by Office of Probation
    Administration).
    - 25 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    IQ was 68, placing him in the second percentile of children
    his age. Testing also revealed Victor had extremely low ver-
    bal reasoning abilities, markedly impaired abstract reasoning
    abilities, and substantial impairments in practical knowledge
    and judgment. The report suggested all of these skills were
    “directly related to [Victor’s] ability to assist his attorney and
    to make decisions.” Results from testing to assess Victor’s
    understanding of the juvenile legal process showed he under-
    stood some aspects of the proceedings, but did not understand
    others. Among other things, he did not understand the basis
    for his current charges, how he could assist his counsel, what
    it meant to deny the allegations of the petition, the role of the
    juvenile court judge, the role of his defense attorney, or the
    role of the juvenile probation officer. Ultimately, the report
    concluded that “Victor does not have the capacities associated
    with competence to stand trial in juvenile court.”
    In a section of the report titled “Remediation Potential,”
    Perez noted:
    It may be possible for Victor’s adjudicative competency
    to improve in the areas of understanding and appreciation
    of pleas, penalties, and the roles of the courtroom partici-
    pants; however, this will require repeated, graded expo-
    sure to these concepts over time, substantially more than
    is required for most individuals his age. Even if he is able
    to improve in these areas, his ability to reason with that
    information in the service of assisting his attorney and
    making case decisions remains limited.
    Perez suggested that Victor’s competency deficits were due
    primarily to his developmental delays in reasoning and com-
    munication and his mental health condition. She opined these
    conditions were “likely to endure and to continue to negatively
    impact his competency.”
    No party disputed the findings or methodology of Perez,
    and no additional evidence bearing on Victor’s competency
    was offered. Based on the evidence adduced, Victor’s counsel
    - 26 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    urged the court to find that Victor was not competent and to
    dismiss the truancy petition on that basis.
    The State did not dispute the report’s conclusion that Victor
    was not competent; instead, it argued that a juvenile’s “lack of
    competency, per se, is [not] grounds for dismissal.” The State’s
    primary contention was that competency was not required
    for adjudication of a status offense. Alternatively, the State
    proposed the court should consider either proceeding with
    the adjudication hearing after appointing a guardian ad litem
    (GAL) for Victor or ordering Victor to “go to some facility in
    order to regain competence.” The State offered no evidence
    showing how the appointment of a GAL would allow Victor to
    meaningfully participate in the proceedings despite his incom-
    petency. And when the court asked the State’s counsel whether
    Nebraska had a facility focused on competency restoration for
    juveniles, the State responded that it would need to do some
    research. The court took the matter under advisement, and our
    record contains no information from the State regarding com-
    petency restoration.
    Order of Dismissal
    In an order entered March 25, 2020, the court found that
    Victor was not competent, and it dismissed the truancy pro-
    ceeding on that basis. The order of dismissal directed that all
    records relating to the matter be sealed 3 and recited that infor-
    mation concerning the proceedings was deemed never to have
    occurred. The State appeals.
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    The State assigns, restated and renumbered, that the juvenile
    court erred in dismissing the truancy petition because (1) com-
    petency is not required in juvenile adjudications for a status
    offense; (2) even if competency is required for status offense
    adjudications, the court could have adequately protected the
    3
    See 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-2
    ,108.01 to 43-2,108.05 (Supp. 2019).
    - 27 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    juvenile’s competency right through other procedures; and (3)
    the juvenile court should not have dismissed based on a find-
    ing of incompetency before ordering appropriate treatment to
    restore competency or making a judicial finding that compe-
    tency could not be restored.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1] We have not previously articulated a standard of review
    for appeals from a juvenile court’s preadjudication determina-
    tion that a petition should be dismissed because the juvenile is
    not competent. Ordinarily, an appellate court reviews juvenile
    cases de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion indepen-
    dent of the juvenile court’s findings. 4 But in some cases, we
    have said the appropriate standard of review is de novo on the
    record for an abuse of discretion. 5 We have applied the latter
    standard of review when considering a juvenile court’s deci-
    sion to transfer a juvenile delinquency case to county court or
    district court, 6 when considering a juvenile court’s determina-
    tion that a juvenile was denied the statutory right to a prompt
    adjudication, 7 and when considering a juvenile court’s determi-
    nation that a juvenile’s waiver of counsel was voluntary, know-
    ing, and intelligent. 8
    [2,3] We now conclude that a juvenile court’s determina-
    tion that a juvenile petition should be dismissed because the
    juvenile lacks competency to participate in the proceedings
    involves the sort of discretion that warrants review de novo
    on the record for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discre-
    tion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons
    4
    In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 
    295 Neb. 764
    , 
    891 N.W.2d 109
     (2017).
    5
    See, e.g., In re Interest of Steven S., 
    299 Neb. 447
    , 
    908 N.W.2d 391
    (2018); In re Interest of Shaquille H., 
    285 Neb. 512
    , 
    827 N.W.2d 501
    (2013); In re Interest of Dalton S., 
    273 Neb. 504
    , 
    730 N.W.2d 816
     (2007);
    In re Interest of J.K., 
    265 Neb. 253
    , 
    656 N.W.2d 253
     (2003).
    6
    In re Interest of Steven S., supra note 5.
    7
    In re Interest of Shaquille H., supra note 5.
    8
    In re Interest of Dalton S., supra note 5.
    - 28 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly
    against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. 9
    [4] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, on
    which an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion
    independent of the determination reached by the court below. 10
    ANALYSIS
    Dismissal Order Is Final and Appealable
    [5] In a juvenile case, as in any other appeal, before reach-
    ing the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an
    appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the
    matter before it. 11 Victor argues we lack jurisdiction because
    the State has not appealed from a final order. We disagree.
    Pursuant to 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2
    ,106.01 (Reissue 2016),
    the county attorney is among those expressly authorized to
    appeal from “[a]ny final order or judgment entered by a juve-
    nile court . . . in the same manner as an appeal from [the]
    district court to the Court of Appeals.” The county attorney’s
    appeal process differs in delinquency cases once the juvenile
    “has been placed legally in jeopardy,” 12 but that appeal process
    has no application here. As such, the county attorney’s right to
    appeal turns on whether the juvenile court’s dismissal was a
    final order.
    
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902
     (Cum. Supp. 2020) authorizes
    appeals from four types of final orders: (1) those affecting a
    substantial right in an action that, in effect, determines the
    action and prevents a judgment; (2) those affecting a substan-
    tial right made during a special proceeding; (3) those affecting
    a substantial right made on summary application in an action
    after judgment is rendered; and (4) those denying a motion
    9
    Walker v. BNSF Railway Co., 
    306 Neb. 559
    , 
    946 N.W.2d 656
     (2020).
    10
    TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Nicholas Family, 
    299 Neb. 276
    , 
    908 N.W.2d 60
     (2018).
    11
    In re Interest of Becka P. et al., 
    296 Neb. 365
    , 
    894 N.W.2d 247
     (2017).
    12
    See § 43-2,106.01(2)(d).
    - 29 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    for summary judgment when such motion is based on the asser-
    tion of sovereign immunity or the immunity of a government
    official. 13 We have consistently held that juvenile proceedings
    are special proceedings. 14 So here, the jurisdictional question
    turns on whether the order of dismissal affected a substantial
    right of the State. We conclude it did.
    [6,7] Under Nebraska law, a substantial right is affected if
    “an order affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as
    diminishing a claim or defense that was available to the appel-
    lant prior to the order from which the appeal is taken.” 15 The
    State’s right in juvenile proceedings is derived from its parens
    patriae interest, 16 and in In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 17 we
    held that the State’s substantial right is affected when an order
    dismisses a juvenile proceeding in its entirety, with no leave to
    amend, and the State is thus foreclosed from pursuing adjudi-
    cation and disposition on the grounds alleged.
    Victor suggests that dismissing the truancy petition did not
    affect a substantial right of the State, because the State is not
    precluded from seeking adjudication on different grounds, such
    as alleging that Victor is within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a)
    due to the faults or habits of his parent(s). We express no
    opinion about whether the State may be able to seek adjudica-
    tion on alternative grounds, because the jurisdictional question
    here is not answered by asking whether a different statutory
    provision might also support adjudication. Instead, the juris-
    dictional question turns on whether the juvenile court’s order
    dismissed the truancy proceeding in its entirety, thereby fore-
    closing the State from pursuing adjudication and disposition
    13
    In re Claim of Roberts for Attorney Fees, 
    307 Neb. 346
    , 
    949 N.W.2d 299
    (2020).
    14
    See, e.g., In re Interest of Noah B. et al., supra note 4.
    15
    In re Interest of Karlie D., 
    283 Neb. 581
    , 587, 
    811 N.W.2d 214
    , 221
    (2012).
    16
    In re Interest of Noah B. et al., supra note 4.
    17
    See id.
    - 30 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    of Victor on the ground of truancy under § 43-247(3)(b). It
    plainly did, and we therefore conclude the State has appealed
    from a final order. We turn next to the merits of the State’s
    assigned errors.
    Competency in Juvenile Adjudications
    On appeal, the State’s primary argument is that truancy is a
    status offense and that a juvenile need not be competent to be
    adjudicated for a status offense. In response, Victor argues that
    regardless of the basis on which an adjudication is sought, it
    offends constitutional due process principles to adjudicate a
    juvenile who is not competent to participate in the proceedings.
    This court has not yet addressed whether competency to par-
    ticipate in juvenile adjudication proceedings is among the con-
    stitutional due process rights to which juveniles are entitled.
    The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet addressed the specific
    question either. But most appellate courts to have considered
    the question have generally concluded that accused juveniles
    have a constitutional due process right not to be adjudicated of
    a juvenile offense while incompetent. 18
    18
    See, e.g., In re Albert C., 
    3 Cal. 5th 483
    , 
    397 P.3d 240
    , 
    219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 897
     (2017); SWM v. State, 
    299 P.3d 673
     (Wyo. 2013); In re T.S., 
    798 N.W.2d 649
     (N.D. 2011); In re K.G., 
    808 N.E.2d 631
     (Ind. 2004); In re
    J.M., 
    172 Vt. 61
    , 
    769 A.2d 656
     (2001); Golden v. State, 
    341 Ark. 656
    , 
    21 S.W.3d 801
     (2000); Matter of W.A.F., 
    573 A.2d 1264
     (D.C. 1990); State
    ex rel. Dandoy v. Superior Court, 
    127 Ariz. 184
    , 
    619 P.2d 12
     (1980);
    Matter of Welfare of S. W. T., 
    277 N.W.2d 507
     (Minn. 1979); Matter of
    Two Minor Children, 
    95 Nev. 225
    , 
    592 P.2d 166
     (1979); State in Interest of
    Causey, 
    363 So. 2d 472
     (La. 1978); In re Carey, 
    241 Mich. App. 222
    , 
    615 N.W.2d 742
     (2000); In re Williams, 
    116 Ohio App. 3d 237
    , 
    687 N.E.2d 507
     (1997); State v. E.C., 
    83 Wash. App. 523
    , 
    922 P.2d 152
     (1996); In
    re Interest of S.H., 
    220 Ga. App. 569
    , 
    469 S.E.2d 810
     (1996); James v.
    Superior Court, 
    77 Cal. App. 3d 169
    , 
    143 Cal. Rptr. 398
     (1978). See, also,
    Restatement of the Law, Children and the Law § 15.30 (Tentative Draft
    No. 2, 2019) (recognizing U.S. Supreme Court has not considered whether
    accused juvenile’s adjudicative competence is constitutionally required,
    but state courts and legislatures have almost uniformly concluded due
    process requires that accused youth facing adjudication must be capable of
    understanding proceedings and assisting counsel).
    - 31 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    We see no reason, in this case, to decide whether juve-
    niles have a constitutional due process right not to be adjudi-
    cated while incompetent, because the Nebraska Legislature has
    already recognized an accused juvenile’s statutory right to be
    competent to participate in adjudication proceedings. 19 In that
    regard, § 43-258 provides:
    (1) Pending the adjudication of any case under the
    Nebraska Juvenile Code, the court may order the juve-
    nile examined by a physician, surgeon, psychiatrist, duly
    authorized community mental health service program, or
    psychologist to aid the court in determining (a) a material
    allegation in the petition relating to the juvenile’s physi-
    cal or mental condition, (b) the juvenile’s competence to
    participate in the proceedings, (c) the juvenile’s responsi-
    bility for his or her acts, or (d) whether or not to provide
    emergency medical treatment.
    (2)(a) . . . .
    (b) . . . [P]ending the adjudication of any case in which
    a juvenile is alleged to be a juvenile as described in sub-
    division (1), (2), (3)(b), or (4) of section 43-247 and after
    a showing of probable cause that the juvenile is within
    the court’s jurisdiction, for the purposes of subsection (1)
    of this section, the court may order an evaluation to be
    arranged by the Office of Probation Administration. Any
    temporary placement of a juvenile made under this sec-
    tion shall be in the least restrictive environment consistent
    with the best interests of the juvenile and the safety of
    the community.
    (3) Upon completion of the evaluation, the juvenile
    shall be returned to the court together with a written or
    electronic report of the results of the evaluation. Such
    report shall include an assessment of the basic needs
    19
    See In re Interest of Brandy M. et al., 
    250 Neb. 510
    , 
    550 N.W.2d 17
    (1996) (observing court need not decide unresolved constitutional speedy
    trial issue because juvenile statute already confers statutory right to
    prompt adjudication hearing).
    - 32 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    of the juvenile and recommendations for continuous and
    long-term care and shall be made to effectuate the pur-
    poses in subdivision (1) of section 43-246. The juvenile
    shall appear before the court for a hearing on the report
    of the evaluation results within ten days after the court
    receives the evaluation.
    (Emphasis supplied.)
    As relevant here, § 43-258 authorizes the juvenile court,
    before adjudicating “any case” under the juvenile code, to
    order the examination of the juvenile “to aid the court in
    determining . . . the juvenile’s competence to participate in
    the proceedings.” The competency evaluation provisions of
    § 43-258 apply only to preadjudicated youth, 20 and the stat-
    ute sets out the procedure for accomplishing such evalua-
    tions, including authorizing temporary placement “in the least
    restrictive environment consistent with the best interests of the
    juvenile and the safety of the community.” 21 The statute also
    addresses the content of the competency evaluation report,
    requiring that it “shall include an assessment of the basic
    needs of the juvenile and recommendations for continuous and
    long-term care and shall be made to effectuate the purposes in
    subdivision (1) of section 43-246.” 22 Once the juvenile court
    receives the evaluation report, the court must hold “a hearing
    on the report of the evaluation results within ten days.” 23 But
    as we discuss later, § 43-258 does not mandate any particular
    procedure which must be followed if a youth is determined
    not to be competent.
    [8-11] As we have often noted, it is the Legislature’s func-
    tion through the enactment of statutes to declare what is
    20
    In re Interest of Ty M. & Devon M., 
    265 Neb. 150
    , 
    655 N.W.2d 672
     (2003)
    (holding mental evaluations of juvenile authorized under § 43-258 are not
    relevant to adjudicated youth).
    21
    § 43-258(2)(b).
    22
    § 43-258(3).
    23
    Id.
    - 33 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    the law and public policy. 24 In construing a statute, a court
    must determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of
    the Legislature as ascertained from the entire language of the
    statute considered in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense. 25 A
    court must give effect to all parts of a statute, and if it can be
    avoided, no word, clause, or sentence will be rejected as super-
    fluous or meaningless. 26 The foremost purpose and objective
    of the Nebraska Juvenile Code is to promote and protect the
    juvenile’s best interests, and the Nebraska Juvenile Code must
    be liberally construed to serve the best interests of juveniles
    who fall within it. 27
    [12] Applying these principles, we construe the plain lan-
    guage of § 43-258 to recognize, as a matter of public policy,
    that juveniles accused of delinquency and status offenses have
    a statutory right to be competent to participate in adjudication
    proceedings. Surprisingly, the State’s appellate brief contains
    no citation to, or discussion of, the competency provisions in
    § 43-258. Nevertheless, because the provisions of § 43-258
    plainly apply to the adjudication of delinquency and status
    offenses, we must reject, as contrary to the plain language of
    § 43-258, the State’s contention that juveniles who face adjudi-
    cation for a status offense need not be competent to participate
    in the proceedings. The State’s first assignment of error has
    no merit.
    Procedure When Juvenile
    Not Competent
    The State does not argue that preadjudication dismissal of
    a juvenile petition is never appropriate after a determination
    24
    See In re Interest of Kendra M. et al., 
    283 Neb. 1014
    , 
    814 N.W.2d 747
    (2012).
    25
    In re Interest of Seth C., 
    307 Neb. 862
    , 
    951 N.W.2d 135
     (2020).
    26
    
    Id.
    27
    
    Id.
    - 34 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    that a youth is incompetent. 28 Instead, the thrust of the State’s
    argument is that preadjudication dismissal for lack of compe-
    tency should not be considered mandatory, as other options
    may be available to safeguard a juvenile’s right to adjudica-
    tive competency. The State’s appellate briefing focuses on
    the same two options it mentioned below: either appointing a
    GAL for Victor and proceeding with adjudication despite his
    lack of competency or ordering reasonable efforts to restore
    Victor’s competency.
    Before we can address the State’s contention that preadjudi-
    cation dismissal of an incompetent youth is not mandatory, we
    must confront a statutory dilemma. While the Legislature has
    recognized an accused juvenile’s statutory right to be compe-
    tent to participate in adjudication proceedings, it has not man-
    dated any particular procedure to enforce or protect that right
    when a youth is found incompetent. In that respect, the statu-
    tory competency rights under the juvenile code are distinctly
    different from those under the criminal code. 29
    Unlike the juvenile code, the criminal code mandates the
    procedure to be followed once an accused is found not compe-
    tent to stand trial. 30 Under that procedure:
    If the district court determines that the accused is incom-
    petent to stand trial, then the court must make a determi-
    nation whether there is a substantial probability that the
    accused will become competent within the foreseeable
    future. If the district court determines that there is a sub-
    stantial probability that the accused will become com-
    petent within the foreseeable future, then § 29-1823(1)
    28
    See, e.g., In re Interest of LeVanta S., 
    295 Neb. 151
    , 154, 
    887 N.W.2d 502
    , 506 (2016) (noting delinquency and truancy petition was “dropped”
    after 15-year-old twins with developmental disabilities were found
    not competent).
    29
    Compare § 43-258 with 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1823
     (Cum. Supp. 2020).
    30
    See, State v. Jones, 
    258 Neb. 695
    , 
    605 N.W.2d 434
     (2000) (noting
    § 29-1823 sets out decision tree district courts are obligated to follow once
    accused is found incompetent).
    - 35 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    mandates that the court order the accused committed to a
    state mental hospital or to some other appropriate state-
    owned or state-operated facility for appropriate treat-
    ment until such time as the disability may be removed.
    Section 29-1823(2) provides for 6-month reviews of the
    competency determination made by the district court. If,
    however, the district court determines that there is not
    a substantial probability that the accused will become
    competent within the foreseeable future, § 29-1823(3)
    specifies the appropriate procedure: the State shall either
    commence civil commitment proceedings or release
    the accused. 31
    The State’s briefing generally suggests, without any analy-
    sis, that juvenile courts should follow the same enforcement
    procedure mandated under the criminal code. While this court
    has, on occasion, looked to criminal statutes for general guid-
    ance when considering similar juvenile statutes, 32 we are not
    persuaded the Legislature intended juvenile courts to enforce
    statutory competency rights using only the criminal procedure
    set out in § 29-1823.
    The juvenile code’s competency provisions neither ref-
    erence nor incorporate the criminal code’s procedures for
    enforcing a criminal defendant’s competency rights. And if
    the Legislature had wanted the criminal competency proce-
    dures to be imported into juvenile proceedings, it easily could
    have done so, as it did when it incorporated 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207
    (4) (Reissue 2016) into the procedure for calculating
    a juvenile’s statutory right to prompt adjudication. 33 Instead,
    the Legislature has been conspicuously silent and has not
    31
    
    Id. at 701
    , 
    605 N.W.2d at 439
     (emphasis omitted).
    32
    See, e.g., In re Interest of Laurance S., 
    274 Neb. 620
    , 
    742 N.W.2d 484
     (2007) (referring to criminal restitution statute for guidance when
    determining restitution factors in juvenile disposition).
    33
    See 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-271
     (Reissue 2016) (providing computation of
    6-month prompt adjudication period “shall be made as provided in section
    29-1207, as applicable”).
    - 36 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    mandated any particular procedure for enforcing a juvenile’s
    statutory right to competency in adjudication proceedings.
    So what is a juvenile court to do once it determines that a
    juvenile is not competent to participate in adjudication pro-
    ceedings? Is dismissal mandatory? Are other options avail-
    able? We asked similar questions in In re Interest of Brandy
    M. et al. 34
    There, the State appealed from orders of dismissal entered
    in 10 separate juvenile adjudication proceedings; each dis-
    missal was predicated on the juvenile court’s determination
    that the youth’s statutory right to a prompt adjudication had
    been violated. 35 We found it was readily apparent from the
    plain language of the governing statutes that the Legislature
    intended to provide juveniles with a statutory right to a prompt
    adjudication hearing. But we also observed that, unlike the
    speedy trial statutes for criminal defendants, 36 the prompt
    adjudication statutes for juveniles did not specify the remedy
    for noncompliance.
    In re Interest of Brandy M. et al. did not, however, conclude
    that the absence of a specific statutory enforcement procedure
    left the juvenile court with no options. To the contrary, we
    reasoned that since the Legislature had established the statu-
    tory right to speedy adjudication without mandating a sanc-
    tion for violating the right, it had enacted a statutory scheme
    under which enforcement was directory rather than manda­
    tory. 37 Under that circumstance, we held it was “within the
    sound discretion of the juvenile court to determine whether
    absolute discharge of a juvenile petition is in the best interests
    of a juvenile.” 38
    34
    In re Interest of Brandy M. et al., supra note 19.
    35
    See, § 43-271 and 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-277
     and 43-278 (Reissue 2016)
    (establishing juvenile’s prompt adjudication rights).
    36
    Compare §§ 43-271 and 43-278 with § 29-1207 and 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-1208
     and 29-1209 (Reissue 2016).
    37
    In re Interest of Brandy M. et al., supra note 19.
    38
    Id. at 524, 
    550 N.W.2d at 26
    .
    - 37 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    In In re Interest of Brandy M. et al., we found persuasive
    cases from other jurisdictions in which the courts balanced a
    juvenile’s statutory right to speedy adjudication with protec-
    tion of the juvenile’s best interests. We observed that a “rigid
    and legalistic interpretation of a juvenile’s statutory right to a
    speedy delinquency adjudication would often be contrary to a
    juvenile’s best interests and, ultimately, contrary to the public
    interest.” 39 Conversely, we observed that it “is rarely in the best
    interests of a juvenile to have his or her case languish unadju-
    dicated in the juvenile court” 40 because delays in adjudication
    can affect the quality of evidence, impair a juvenile’s defense,
    prevent a fair hearing, and be detrimental to the youth’s reha-
    bilitation in the event of adjudication. To help guide juvenile
    courts in deciding whether absolute discharge is in a juvenile’s
    best interests, we suggested courts should consider (1) the fac-
    tors set out in the statutes establishing the juvenile’s right to a
    prompt adjudication, (2) the juvenile’s right to a prompt and
    fair adjudication, and (3) “the future treatment and rehabilita-
    tion of the juvenile in the event of an adjudication.” 41 And
    because of the discretion inherent in such a determination, we
    held that our appellate review should be de novo on the record
    for an abuse of discretion. 42
    Applying that standard to our de novo review in In re
    Interest of Brandy M. et al., we concluded the juvenile court
    had not abused its discretion in granting absolute discharge. In
    considering whether absolute discharge was in the juvenile’s
    best interests, we observed the statutory adjudication period
    had run in each of the 10 cases, and we noted the State had
    adduced no evidence of excludable periods under the appli-
    cable statute and had instead offered evidence which, at best,
    showed only that the juvenile dockets were overcrowded and
    39
    Id. at 522, 
    550 N.W.2d at 25
    .
    40
    
    Id. at 524
    , 
    550 N.W.2d at 26
    .
    41
    
    Id.
    42
    See In re Interest of Brandy M. et al., supra note 19.
    - 38 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    more judges were needed. We also considered the nature of
    the prompt adjudication right and evidence of how the delay
    in adjudication had prejudiced the juveniles. Finally, we noted
    the State had adduced no evidence at all concerning the reha-
    bilitative needs, future treatment, or best interests of any of the
    juveniles facing adjudication. On that record, we could find
    no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s decision to grant
    absolute discharge.
    [13] We find the reasoning of In re Interest of Brandy M. et
    al. instructive when reviewing the juvenile court’s dismissal
    here. Like the prompt adjudication rights at issue in In re
    Interest of Brandy M. et al., the Legislature has established
    a juvenile’s statutory right to be competent to participate in
    adjudication proceedings, but it has not mandated a specific
    procedure for enforcing or protecting that right. The absence
    of a compulsory or mandatory procedure for enforcing adju-
    dicative competency rights under § 43-258 does not appear
    to have been an oversight. Instead, it appears the Legislature
    intended to leave the procedure to the sound discretion of the
    juvenile court, based on the best interests of the juvenile. 43 Our
    conclusion in this regard is entirely consistent with 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-246
    (7) (Cum. Supp. 2020), which directs that when
    construing the juvenile code, courts should do so in a manner
    that “provide[s] a judicial procedure through which [the] pur-
    poses and goals [of the juvenile code] are accomplished and
    enforced” and “in which the parties are assured a fair hearing
    and their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized
    and enforced.”
    [14] An appropriate judicial procedure for determining
    whether preadjudication dismissal is in the best interests of an
    incompetent juvenile will generally include consideration of
    (1) the nature and extent of the juvenile’s incompetency and
    the impact it may have on the juvenile’s meaningful exercise
    of other adjudicatory rights, (2) the evaluation report required
    43
    See 
    id.
    - 39 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    by § 43-258(3) and any other competent evidence assessing the
    juvenile’s needs and making recommendations for the juve-
    nile’s continuous and long-term care, (3) the juvenile’s statu-
    tory right to be competent while participating in adjudication
    proceedings, and (4) the future treatment and rehabilitation of
    the juvenile in the event of an adjudication. 44 The benchmark
    of this determination is the protection of the best interests of
    the incompetent juvenile. 45
    We consider these factors as part of our de novo review of
    the record to determine whether the juvenile court abused its
    discretion in dismissing the State’s petition. 46 An abuse of dis-
    cretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon rea-
    sons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly
    against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. 47
    The only evidence in our record is the competency evalua­
    tion report authored by Perez, which concludes that “Victor
    does not have the capacities associated with competence to
    stand trial in juvenile court.” The State has not contested the
    methodology applied to determine competency, nor has it
    contested the juvenile court’s determination of incompetency.
    As such, this case does not afford the opportunity to address
    the juvenile competency standard, and we express no opinion
    in that regard. The competency evaluation report concluded
    Victor has a full-scale IQ of 68, low verbal reasoning abilities,
    impaired abstract reasoning abilities, and impaired practical
    knowledge and judgment. He does not understand the basis for
    his current charges, how to assist his counsel, what it means
    to deny the allegations of the petition, the role of the juvenile
    court judge, the role of his defense attorney, or the role of the
    juvenile probation officer.
    44
    See, generally, In re Interest of Brandy M. et al., supra note 19.
    45
    Id.
    46
    See, generally, id.
    47
    Walker, 
    supra note 9
    .
    - 40 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    The State suggested to the juvenile court that it should con-
    sider ordering competency restoration, but it neither expressly
    requested such an order, nor did it provide any evidence to
    support the conclusion that competency restoration was fea-
    sible. The only evidence in that regard was the competency
    evaluation report itself, which concluded that even if Victor’s
    understanding of the juvenile court process could be improved,
    his ability to make reasoned decisions and assist his attor-
    ney would remain limited. Further, the report concluded that
    Victor’s mental deficits and developmental delays in reasoning
    and communication were “likely to endure and to continue to
    negatively impact his competency.” On this record, we can
    find no abuse of discretion in not ordering competency restora-
    tion efforts.
    Nor can we find that the juvenile court abused its discretion
    by not appointing a GAL. First, the State has not specifically
    assigned error to the failure to appoint a GAL, even though
    its appellate briefing argues generally that the juvenile court
    should have “considered” the State’s “proposal for such an
    alternative.” 48 To be considered by an appellate court, the party
    asserting the alleged error must both specifically assign and
    specifically argue it in the party’s initial brief. 49
    Second, while the State argues on appeal that the juvenile
    court should have appointed a GAL and proceeded with the
    adjudication hearing despite Victor’s incompetency, the State’s
    proposal to the juvenile court did not expressly move for the
    appointment of a GAL, nor did the State explain why a GAL
    would be appropriate in Victor’s case. During the compe-
    tency review hearing, when referring generally to incompe-
    tent youth charged with status offenses, the State remarked:
    “Furthermore, if the Court is inclined to do so, other states
    have, in those instances, appointed a [GAL] to represent that
    juvenile ­offender’s best interests.”
    48
    Brief for appellant at 15, 16.
    49
    Dycus v. Dycus, 
    307 Neb. 426
    , 
    949 N.W.2d 357
     (2020).
    - 41 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    We strongly encourage the appointment of a GAL in cases
    where an accused youth is found to be incompetent, in order
    to provide the court with appropriate information regarding the
    juvenile’s best interests and, in particular, whether preadjudi-
    cation dismissal is in the juvenile’s best interests. But here,
    the State argues the juvenile court should have considered
    appointing a GAL for a different purpose: as an “alternative[]
    for safeguarding competency issues” 50 during the adjudica-
    tion hearing and “subsequent court proceedings.” 51 Not only
    did the State fail to expressly move for the appointment of
    a GAL, but it adduced no evidence tending to show how the
    appointment of a GAL would protect Victor’s adjudicative
    competency rights or remediate his inability to understand the
    proceedings or consult with and assist his counsel. While there
    may be circumstances under which the appointment of a GAL
    can effectively address adjudicative incompetence, the State’s
    failure to expressly request such an appointment or to present
    any evidence on that issue left the juvenile court without any
    meaningful basis for considering the appointment of a GAL for
    the purpose of proceeding with the adjudication hearing.
    Finally, the State presented no evidence at all of the pos-
    sible future treatment and rehabilitation options for Victor in
    the event of an adjudication. Consequently, our record does
    not permit consideration of this factor when deciding whether
    preadjudication dismissal was in Victor’s best interests given
    his incompetency.
    Although our discussion has necessarily been limited to the
    options presented to the juvenile court once Victor was found
    to be incompetent, undoubtedly there are other options avail-
    able to a juvenile court judge tasked with determining whether
    preadjudication dismissal, or some other procedure, is in the
    best interests of an incompetent juvenile. In future cases, to
    assist the juvenile court in identifying available options, we
    50
    Brief for appellant at 10.
    51
    Id. at 15.
    - 42 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    IN RE INTEREST OF VICTOR L.
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 21
    encourage the appointment of a GAL for the juvenile, and we
    encourage the parties to make specific suggestions and offer
    appropriate supporting evidence, so the court has as much
    information as possible when deciding which option would
    be in the juvenile’s best interests. And to assist in meaningful
    appellate review, we encourage judges to explain their reasons
    for selecting one option over the others.
    Here, after determining that Victor was not competent to
    participate in adjudication proceedings, it was within the
    sound discretion of the juvenile court to determine, based on
    Victor’s best interests, how to proceed. While a juvenile court
    may, depending on the circumstances, have viable options
    other than preadjudication dismissal, our de novo review of
    this record does not show an abuse of discretion in dismissing
    the petition.
    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court’s
    preadjudication dismissal of the truancy petition based on the
    juvenile’s lack of competency to participate in the proceedings.
    Affirmed.