- 356 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF KEYANNA R.

Cite as 299 Neb. 356

In re Interest of Keyanna R., a child

under 18 years of age.

State of Nebraska, appellee, 

v. Keyanna R., appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed March 16, 2018. No. S-17-659.

1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juvenile 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 thoroughly 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 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

05/04/2018 08:10 AM CDT
- 357 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

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 dispositional order unless “(a) [a]ll available community-based 

resources” have been exhausted and “(b) [there is] a significant risk of harm to the juvenile or community” by “[m]aintaining the juvenile in the home.” We conclude the out-ofhome 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 misdemeanor. 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 program. 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 Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

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 probation 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 outpatient 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 environment 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 residential 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 program 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 characterized 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 Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

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, including 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 communitybased 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 juvenile 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 relevant 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 Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

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 subdivision (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 family; and

(b) Maintaining the juvenile in the home presents a significant 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 establishing that no other community-based resources have a reasonable possibility for success or that all options for communitybased 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 Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

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 transition 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, structure 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.

Affirmed.

Wright and Kelch, JJ., not participating.