In re Interest of Keyanna R. , 299 Neb. 356 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    03/23/2018 01:13 AM CDT
    - 356 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    IN RE INTEREST OF KEYANNA R.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 356
    In   re I nterest of
    K eyanna R., a child
    18 years of age.
    under
    State of Nebraska, appellee,
    v. K eyanna R., appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed March 16, 2018.    No. S-17-659.
    1.	 Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juve-
    nile cases de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independently
    of the juvenile court’s findings.
    2.	 Minors: Proof. The exhaustion requirement of Neb. Rev. Stat.
    § 43-251.01(7)(a) (Reissue 2016) demands evidence establishing that
    no other community-based resources have a reasonable possibility for
    success or that all options for community-based services have been thor-
    oughly considered and none are feasible.
    Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster
    County: Toni G. Thorson, Judge. Affirmed.
    Joe Nigro, Lancaster County Public Defender, and James G.
    Sieben for appellant.
    Joe Kelly, Lancaster County Attorney, Tara Parpart, and
    Margaret R. Jackson, Senior Certified Law Student, for
    appellee.
    Heavican,               C.J.,    Miller-Lerman,          Cassel,   Stacy,   and
    Funke, JJ.
    Miller-Lerman, J.
    NATURE OF CASE
    Keyanna R. appeals from a disposition by the separate
    juvenile court of Lancaster County which ordered her placed
    - 357 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    IN RE INTEREST OF KEYANNA R.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 356
    in a residential group home. The appeal presents the question
    of whether the out-of-home placement order complied with
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-251.01(7) (Reissue 2016), which requires
    that a juvenile not be placed out of his or her home as a dis-
    positional order unless “(a) [a]ll available community-based
    resources” have been exhausted and “(b) [there is] a signifi-
    cant risk of harm to the juvenile or community” by “[m]ain-
    taining the juvenile in the home.” We conclude the out-of-
    home placement complied with both requirements. Therefore,
    we affirm.
    STATEMENT OF FACTS
    Keyanna was adjudicated pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat.
    § 43-247(1) (Reissue 2016) based on a plea of no contest to
    unauthorized use of a propelled vehicle, a Class III misde-
    meanor. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-516 (Reissue 2016). The charges
    stemmed from an incident in which Keyanna, with a group of
    friends, took the vehicle of another juvenile’s parent without
    permission and drove it to Texas. The vehicle was recovered in
    Ellsworth, Kansas.
    After Keyanna entered her no contest plea, the court
    placed her on a conditional release to Boys Town Psychiatric
    Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) in Omaha, Nebraska,
    where she began treatment in February 2017. Keyanna did
    not object to this order. The court stated that its conditional
    release was based on an evaluation which identified troubling
    behavior at home and at school. These behaviors had included
    threatening to commit suicide or to run away, being expelled
    from two high schools because of physical altercations with
    peers, and refusing to attend two support programs.
    Certain issues arose while Keyanna was in the PRTF pro-
    gram. On one occasion, Keyanna was found to be too unsafe to
    be transported to Lincoln for a court hearing. There were safety
    concerns while Keyanna was at PRTF, including Keyanna’s
    evident risk of self-harming and running away (possibly by
    taking a staff member’s car). On the other hand, Keyanna
    made progress regarding anger control and self-calming. She
    - 358 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    IN RE INTEREST OF KEYANNA R.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 356
    was deemed to have successfully completed the program in
    June 2017.
    A dispositional hearing was conducted on June 12, 2017.
    Following the hearing, the court entered a dispositional order
    and an “Agreement and Order of Probation,” which placed
    Keyanna on probation for 2 years and ordered her to reside
    at a Boys Town group home. The court ordered a review after
    6 months.
    At the June 12, 2017, disposition hearing, Keyanna’s proba-
    tion officer testified about the treatment available at the Boys
    Town residential group home. The probation officer testified
    that the treatment plan at that residential group home would
    include family therapy and weekly outpatient therapy to work
    on mood stabilization. The probation officer testified that out-
    patient therapy and family therapy services were available in
    Lincoln, but that the treatment team and Keyanna’s mother
    believed it was in Keyanna’s best interests to participate in the
    group home level of care. The probation officer stated that the
    duration of the residential group home program was generally
    6 months to a year. Keyanna’s therapist believed the group
    home would permit Keyanna to practice her skills in an envi-
    ronment that was less restrictive than PRTF.
    In making its determination, the court advised Keyanna that
    the testimony at the hearing showed that the Boys Town resi-
    dential group home rather than home placement could prevent
    backsliding from the therapy she had received on conditional
    release at PRTF and help her follow through. The court noted
    that because the evidence showed that the group home pro-
    gram was integrative, Keyanna would have access to the Boys
    Town doctors she had been seeing, rather than starting over
    with new providers in Lincoln. The testimony universally char-
    acterized the Boys Town group home as a “step down” from
    intensive treatment designed to facilitate Keyanna’s return to
    the family home.
    In its June 12, 2017, order styled “Reasonable Effort
    Determination,” the court found that reasonable efforts and all
    available community resources had been exhausted and that it
    - 359 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    IN RE INTEREST OF KEYANNA R.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 356
    would be contrary to Keyanna’s welfare to reside in the family
    home due to her need for additional structure and supervision.
    The court named efforts considered and attempted, includ-
    ing counseling, evaluation, and probation supervision. The
    order stated that residing “in the home presents a significant
    risk of harm to [Keyanna] and [the] community.” The June
    12 “Agreement and Order of Probation” was consistent with
    this order.
    Keyanna appeals the June 12, 2017, disposition placing her
    in the group home.
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    Keyanna assigns, restated, that the juvenile court erred
    when it ordered her to reside at a Boys Town group home,
    because there was insufficient evidence that all community-
    based resources had been exhausted and the evidence failed to
    show that residing in the family home presented a significant
    risk of harm to her or the community. Keyanna also contends
    that the court applied a best interests analysis and ignored the
    controlling statute, § 43-251.01(7).
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on
    the record and reaches a conclusion independently of the juve-
    nile court’s findings. In re Interest of Lilly S. & Vincent S., 
    298 Neb. 306
    , 
    903 N.W.2d 651
    (2017).
    ANALYSIS
    Keyanna claims that the juvenile court erred when it placed
    her in a residential group home. She argues that the rel-
    evant statutory requirements were not met, because there was
    insufficient evidence all community-based resources had been
    exhausted, and that the evidence failed to show residing in her
    family home presented a significant risk of harm to her or the
    community. She also contends that the juvenile court wrongly
    applied a best interests analysis at the expense of adhering to
    the applicable statute. After a review of the statute and the
    record, we reject Keyanna’s assignments of error.
    - 360 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    IN RE INTEREST OF KEYANNA R.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 356
    The parties agree that the controlling statute applicable to
    this case is § 43-251.01(7), which provides as follows:
    A juvenile alleged to be a juvenile as described in subdi-
    vision (1), (2), (3)(b), or (4) of section 43-247 shall not
    be placed out of his or her home as a dispositional order
    of the court unless:
    (a) All available community-based resources have
    been exhausted to assist the juvenile and his or her fam-
    ily; and
    (b) Maintaining the juvenile in the home presents a sig-
    nificant risk of harm to the juvenile or community.
    As an initial matter, we note that application of § 43-251.01
    requires a dispositional order. We have reviewed the record
    of the June 12, 2017, hearing and the associated orders. We
    conclude that the juvenile court’s rulings which resulted from
    the hearing and ordered that Keyanna be placed out-of-home at
    Boys Town group home are a dispositional order for purposes
    of § 43-251.01. Accordingly, we apply this statute to the facts
    of this case.
    [2] We have recently interpreted the exhaustion requirement
    of § 43-251.01(7)(a) in In re Interest of Dana H., ante p. 197,
    ___ N.W.2d ___ (2018). We concluded that the exhaustion
    requirement of § 43-251.01(7)(a) demands evidence establish-
    ing that no other community-based resources have a reason-
    able possibility for success or that all options for community-
    based services have been thoroughly considered and none are
    feasible. In reaching our interpretation of § 43-251.01(7)(a),
    we adopted the reasoning with respect to a similar statute
    interpreted in In re Interest of Nedhal A., 
    289 Neb. 711
    , 
    856 N.W.2d 565
    (2014), wherein we stated that the comparable
    exhaustion requirement did not imply that a juvenile court
    must ensure that every conceivable community-based resource
    has been tried and failed. In re Interest of Dana 
    H., supra
    .
    With the foregoing understanding in mind, we have reviewed
    the evidence, and we determine that contrary to Keyanna’s
    contention, the evidence satisfied the exhaustion requirement
    of § 43-251.01(7)(a).
    - 361 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    IN RE INTEREST OF KEYANNA R.
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 356
    The evidence regarding the options available to the juvenile
    court including community-based options is described in the
    “Statement of Facts” section of this opinion and will not be
    repeated here. In sum, the exhaustion evidence showed that
    the “step down” treatment at the Boys Town group home was
    uniquely suited for Keyanna so she could solidify the progress
    she had made during her placement at RPTF. According to the
    evidence, compared to community-based resources, the group
    home was the best approach for Keyanna to facilitate her tran-
    sition back to the family home.
    With respect to the risk analysis required under
    § 43-251.01(7)(b), there is evidence which indicates that given
    Keyanna’s history of self-harming and running away, struc-
    ture was still required to minimize these risks to Keyanna and
    the community.
    Having performed our de novo review, we determine that
    before ordering out-of-home placement, the juvenile court
    made the correct statutory findings. The juvenile court did not
    ignore the statute; nor did it rely strictly on a best interests
    analysis. The juvenile court’s findings were supported by the
    evidence. Thus, upon our de novo review, we find no merit to
    Keyanna’s assertions to the contrary.
    CONCLUSION
    For the reasons set forth above, the orders of the juvenile
    court are affirmed.
    A ffirmed.
    Wright and K elch, JJ., not participating.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: S-17-659

Citation Numbers: 299 Neb. 356

Filed Date: 3/16/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/20/2018