- 591 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF XANDRIA P.

Cite as 311 Neb. 591

In re Interest of Xandria P., a child 

under 18 years of age.

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Dale A., appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed May 13, 2022. No. S-21-500.

1. Juvenile Courts: Evidence: Appeal and Error. An appellate court 

reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the juvenile court’s findings; however, when the 

evidence is in conflict, an appellate court may consider and give weight 

to the fact that the trial court observed the witnesses and accepted one 

version of the facts over the other.

2. Evidence: Appeal and Error. In a de novo review, an appellate court 

disregards inadmissible or improper evidence.

3. Juvenile Courts: Evidence: Appeal and Error. While reviewing a 

juvenile proceeding de novo on the record, an appellate court considers whether the record establishes by a preponderance of the evidence 

that a juvenile is adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) 

(Reissue 2016).

4. Rules of Evidence: Hearsay. A declarant’s out-of-court statement 

offered for the truth of the matter asserted is inadmissible unless it falls 

within a definitional exclusion or statutory exception.

5. ____: ____. Neb. Evid. R. 803(3), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-803(3) (Reissue 

2016), is based on the notion that a person seeking medical attention 

will give a truthful account of the history and current status of his or her 

condition in order to ensure proper treatment.

6. Rules of Evidence: Hearsay: Sexual Assault: Minors. Statements 

made by a child victim of sexual abuse to a forensic interviewer in the 

chain of medical care may be admissible under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3), 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-803(3) (Reissue 2016), even though the interview 

has the partial purpose of assisting law enforcement’s investigation of 

the crimes.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

06/10/2022 08:06 AM CDT
- 592 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF XANDRIA P.

Cite as 311 Neb. 591

7. Rules of Evidence: Hearsay. Whether a statement was both taken 

and given in contemplation of medical diagnosis or treatment is a 

factual finding made by the court in determining the admissibility of 

the evidence under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-803(3) 

(Reissue 2016).

8. Juvenile Courts: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In a juvenile case, 

just as in a civil case, the admission or exclusion of evidence is not 

reversible error unless it unfairly prejudiced a substantial right of the 

complaining party.

9. Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Parental Rights. The purpose of the 

adjudication phase of a juvenile proceeding is to protect the interests of 

the child. The parents’ rights are determined at the dispositional phase, 

not at the adjudication phase.

10. Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Proof. At the adjudication stage, in 

order for a juvenile court to assume jurisdiction of minor children under 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2016), the State must prove the 

allegations of the petition by a preponderance of the evidence.

Appeal from the County Court for Platte County: Frank J. 

Skorupa, Judge. Affirmed.

Joel E. Carlson, of Stratton, DeLay, Doele, Carlson, Buettner 

& Stover, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

Breanna D. Anderson-Flaherty, Deputy Platte County 

Attorney, for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Funke, J.

Following a trial, the county court for Platte County, 

Nebraska, sitting as a juvenile court, adjudicated Xandria P. 

as a juvenile under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 

2016). Xandria’s mother, Victoria M., did not appeal the adjudication order, but Xandria’s stepfather, Dale A., did. Because 

we find no merit to Dale’s appeal, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The State of Nebraska filed a petition alleging Xandria 

was a juvenile under § 43-247(3)(a), because Dale, who is 
- 593 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF XANDRIA P.

Cite as 311 Neb. 591

married to Xandria’s mother, Victoria, and lives with Xandria 

and Victoria, subjected Xandria to sexual abuse. The petition 

also alleged that Xandria had disclosed Dale’s sexual contact 

to Victoria and that Victoria had dismissed the disclosure. The 

court held a hearing in May 2021 and sustained the allegations 

in the petition.

The trial record showed that Xandria, born in 2013, told her 

first grade teacher that “she had a secret with her dad” that she 

was not supposed to tell anyone about or he would go to jail. 

Xandria stated that they do things that “a boyfriend and girlfriend do.” Xandria’s teacher reported Xandria’s statements to 

an investigator with the Platte County sheriff’s office, Joseph 

Gragert. Gragert called the Nebraska Department of Health and 

Human Services (DHHS) child abuse hotline and completed a 

safety intake regarding Xandria with Sara Baustert, a DHHS 

child and family services specialist.

Gragert and Baustert met with Xandria at her school. Baustert 

testified that a school official reported that “Xandria went up 

to a teacher and stated that she has a secret between her and 

her dad and that it’s something that boyfriends and girlfriends 

do and gestured towards her genital area.” The school official

stated that Xandria refers to Dale as “dad,” noting that Dale 

lives in the home with Xandria and Victoria.

Gragert and Baustert placed Xandria into the custody 

of DHHS and transported her to the Northeast Nebraska 

Child Advocacy Center (NNCAC) in Norfolk, Nebraska. 

Sarah Scheinost, a forensic interview specialist, conducted a 

recorded forensic interview of Xandria. During the interview, 

Scheinost explained that the NNCAC is part of a hospital network with doctors and nurses available to meet with Xandria. 

Scheinost also explained that it was important for Xandria 

to tell the truth, and Xandria agreed to do so. Xandria then 

disclosed that she and her “dad” had a secret for more than 

1 year whereon multiple occasions he would remove his and 

Xandria’s clothing and “put his thing that he uses to pee” 

in her “place that she uses to go pee.” Using her hands and 
- 594 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF XANDRIA P.

Cite as 311 Neb. 591

anatomical drawings, Xandria identified her vaginal area. 

Xandria referred to his penis as a “big, huge, thing” that he 

“uses to pee.” Xandria reported that on multiple times he 

had gotten on top of her while both were without clothing. 

Xandria reported that “her ‘[d]ad’ licked her in the vaginal 

area” and that she had disclosed this to Victoria on at least 

one occasion.

The State, after filing the petition in this matter, requested 

a pretrial hearing on the admissibility of Xandria’s recorded 

interview. At that hearing, Scheinost provided testimony on 

behalf of the State to lay foundation for the admission of 

the recorded interview. Scheinost testified that she holds a 

bachelor’s degree in human service counseling and a master’s 

degree of science in education. Scheinost further testified that 

the NNCAC is located on the east campus of a medical facility. 

Scheinost indicated that the NNCAC provides forensic interviews, medical examinations, and child advocacy. Scheinost 

explained that forensic interviews provide medical and therapeutic care for the victim and allow for medical examination 

or continued therapy as possible followup treatment. Scheinost 

also testified that the recorded forensic interviews are conducted for medical purposes and can be used for purposes of 

medical diagnosis and treatment.

On cross-examination, Scheinost admitted she had no medical training and did not make a medical diagnosis. Scheinost 

also testified that law enforcement was involved in the matter 

both before and after the interview and that potential child 

abuse was being investigated. The court, over the hearsay 

objections of Dale and Victoria, ruled the interview admissible 

pursuant to the statutory exception regarding medical evidence under Neb. Evid. R. 803(3), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-803(3) 

(Reissue 2016).

At the adjudication hearing, Xandria did not testify, but 

her recorded interview was received into evidence, again over 

the objections of Dale and Victoria. Gragert testified about 

phone calls made by Dale to Victoria while Dale was in jail. 
- 595 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF XANDRIA P.

Cite as 311 Neb. 591

Gragert testified that Dale and Victoria spoke multiple times 

every day and that in certain calls, Dale had directed Victoria 

to tell Xandria to say that she lied, to tell her that he is in 

jail because of what she said, to tell her not to talk to anybody, and to tell her that she was assaulted by her biological 

father. In one call, Victoria stated to Dale that she may only 

get Xandria back for 1 day, to which Dale responded that 

“one day is enough to tell Xandria to keep her mouth shut.” 

Gragert testified that Victoria generally responded to Dale in 

the affirmative. Gragert testified that Xandria disclosed during 

the forensic interview that she once told Victoria about her 

sexual contact with Dale, and that Victoria stated that “[d]addy 

wouldn’t do that to you.”

Victoria testified that Xandria did not disclose to her sexual 

contact with Dale. Victoria admitted that Dale has instructed 

her to tell Xandria things about the case and that Victoria 

generally responds to Dale in the affirmative. Victoria admitted that she had watched the forensic interview of Xandria 

and was aware of Xandria’s statements regarding Dale’s sexual contact.

The court’s order of adjudication found that Xandria is a 

juvenile, under § 43-247(3)(a), who is abandoned by his or her 

parent, guardian, or custodian; who lacks proper parental care 

by reason of the fault or habits of his or her parent, guardian, or 

custodian; or whose parent, guardian, or custodian neglects or 

refuses to provide proper or necessary subsistence, education, 

or other care necessary for the health, morals, or well-being 

of such juvenile. The court found that the home environment 

created by Dale and Victoria was injurious to Xandria’s health, 

safety, morals, and well-being.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Dale assigns, restated, that the court erred in (1) admitting 

the forensic interview into evidence over hearsay objections, 

(2) admitting other evidence over hearsay and relevance objections, (3) finding sufficient evidence for an adjudication, and 

(4) overruling Dale’s motion to dismiss.
- 596 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF XANDRIA P.

Cite as 311 Neb. 591

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the 

record and reaches its conclusions independently of the juvenile court’s findings; however, when the evidence is in conflict, 

an appellate court may consider and give weight to the fact that 

the trial court observed the witnesses and accepted one version 

of the facts over the other. 1

[2,3] Several legal principles control our de novo review 

of proceedings in the juvenile court. In a de novo review, an 

appellate court disregards inadmissible or improper evidence. 2

While reviewing a juvenile proceeding de novo on the record, 

an appellate court considers whether the record establishes by 

a preponderance of the evidence that a juvenile is adjudicated 

under § 43-247(3)(a). 3

ANALYSIS

Evidentiary Objections

Central to Dale’s appeal is his claim that the juvenile 

court erred in admitting hearsay and irrelevant evidence. To 

summarize, Dale argues that the court erred in admitting 

Xandria’s recorded forensic interview under rule 803(3); in 

allowing Gragert to testify about out-of-court statements made 

by Xandria, Xandria’s teacher, Dale, and Victoria; in admitting 

certified copies of Dale’s criminal charges; and in admitting 

safety and risk assessment documents concerning Xandria.

[4] In regard to the forensic interview, a declarant’s 

out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter 

1 See, In re Interest of Prince R., 308 Neb. 415, 954 N.W.2d 294 (2021); In 

re Interest of Elainna R., 298 Neb. 436, 904 N.W.2d 689 (2017).

2 See, In re Interest of D.P.Y. and J.L.Y., 239 Neb. 647, 477 N.W.2d 573 

(1991); In re Interest of O.L.D. and M.D.D., 1 Neb. App. 471, 499 N.W.2d 

552 (1993), citing In re Interest of L.H. et al., 241 Neb. 232, 487 N.W.2d 

279 (1992).

3 See id.
- 597 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF XANDRIA P.

Cite as 311 Neb. 591

asserted is inadmissible unless it falls within a definitional 

exclusion or statutory exception. 4 Rule 803 provides:

Subject to the provisions of section 27-403, the following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the 

declarant is available as a witness:

. . . .

(3) Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or 

past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the 

inception or general character of the cause or external 

source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

[5-7] Rule 803(3) is based on the notion that a person 

seeking medical attention will give a truthful account of the 

history and current status of his or her condition in order to 

ensure proper treatment. 5 Statements made by a child victim of sexual abuse to a forensic interviewer in the chain 

of medical care may be admissible under rule 803(3), even 

though the interview has the partial purpose of assisting law 

enforcement’s investigation of the crimes. 6 The fundamental 

inquiry to determine whether statements, made by a declarant who knew law enforcement was listening, had a medical purpose is if the challenged statement has some value in 

diagnosis or treatment, because the patient would still have 

the requisite motive for providing the type of sincere and 

4 State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276, 900 N.W.2d 454 (2017).

5 Id. See, State v. Vaught, 268 Neb. 316, 682 N.W.2d 284 (2004); Vacanti 

v. Master Electronics Corp., 245 Neb. 586, 514 N.W.2d 319 (1994); State 

v. Dyer, 245 Neb. 385, 513 N.W.2d 316 (1994); State v. Red Feather, 205 

Neb. 734, 289 N.W.2d 768 (1980). See, also, Morgan v. Foretich, 846 

F.2d 941 (4th Cir. 1988); United States v. Renville, 779 F.2d 430 (8th Cir. 

1985); State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 337 S.E.2d 833 (1985); Gregory v. 

State, 56 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. App. 2001).

6 Jedlicka, supra note 4. See, Tilson v. Tilson, 307 Neb. 275, 948 N.W.2d 

768 (2020); Vaught, supra note 5; State v. Roenfeldt, 241 Neb. 30, 486 

N.W.2d 197 (1992).
- 598 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF XANDRIA P.

Cite as 311 Neb. 591

reliable information that is important to that diagnosis and 

treatment. 7 Whether a statement was both taken and given in 

contemplation of medical diagnosis or treatment is a factual 

finding in determining the admissibility of the evidence under 

rule 803(3). 8

Statements having a dual medical and investigatory purpose 

are admissible under rule 803(3), only if the proponent of the 

statements demonstrates that (1) the declarant’s purpose in 

making the statements was to assist in the provision of medical 

diagnosis or treatment and (2) the statements were of a nature 

reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment by a 

medical professional. 9 Under rule 803(3), the admissibility of 

a victim’s statements in a recording is not distinct from the 

admissibility of the statements themselves. 10 The fundamental 

inquiry when considering a declarant’s intent is whether the 

statement was made in legitimate and reasonable contemplation of medical diagnosis or treatment. 11 Under rule 803(3), the 

appropriate state of mind of the declarant may be reasonably 

inferred from the circumstances; such a determination is necessarily fact specific. 12

Dale argues there was no foundation to admit the forensic interview under rule 803(3), because the specialist who 

conducted the interview did not herself conduct a medical 

7 See id.

8 See, State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575, 856 N.W.2d 310 (2014); State v. Vigil, 

283 Neb. 129, 810 N.W.2d 687 (2012); Red Feather, supra note 5; Morfeld 

v. Weidner, 99 Neb. 49, 154 N.W. 860 (1915); State v. Cheloha, 25 Neb. 

App. 403, 907 N.W.2d 317 (2018); State v. Meduna, 18 Neb. App. 818, 

794 N.W.2d 160 (2011).

9 Jedlicka, supra note 4. See, Tilson, supra note 6; State v. Dady, 304 Neb. 

649, 936 N.W.2d 486 (2019); Vigil, supra note 8; In re Interest of B.R. et 

al., 270 Neb. 685, 708 N.W.2d 586 (2005); Cheloha, supra note 8.

10 Jedlicka, supra note 4.

11 Id.

12 Id.
- 599 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF XANDRIA P.

Cite as 311 Neb. 591

examination or render a medical diagnosis, nor did any other 

health care professional. Dale argues the sole purpose of the 

interview was criminal investigation.

However, Dale’s argument is contrary to Nebraska law 

and this court’s precedents. Here, Scheinost testified that 

the NNCAC is located on the campus of a medical facility. 

Scheinost testified that the recorded forensic interview was 

conducted for a medical purpose and could be used for purposes of diagnosis and treatment. During the forensic interview, Scheinost told Xandria that the interview room is a safe 

room, where she could say what she wanted to say and use the 

words she wanted to use without getting into trouble. Scheinost 

told Xandria that NNCAC is part of a hospital, that doctors and 

nurses work there, and that after the interview, Xandria could 

speak with a doctor or nurse if she had any concerns about 

her body or health. Upon our de no review, we conclude that 

the testimony of Scheinost and the recorded interview itself 

provide adequate foundation for admitting Xandria’s recorded 

testimony under rule 803(3).

Given our conclusion that the juvenile court properly admitted Xandria’s recorded interview, Dale’s remaining evidentiary 

arguments as to the admission of the out-of-court statements of 

Xandria’s teacher, Dale, and Victoria; the admission of certified copies of Dale’s criminal charges; and the admission of 

the safety and risk assessments are irrelevant because Dale has 

failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced as a result of the 

court’s evidentiary rulings.

[8] This court has recently observed that in a juvenile case, 

just as in a civil case, the admission or exclusion of evidence 

is not reversible error unless it unfairly prejudiced a substantial right of the complaining party. 13 Moreover, when evaluating Dale’s evidentiary objections, it is important to note that 

an appellate court does not consider inadmissible evidence 

13 In re Interest of Vladimir G., 306 Neb. 127, 944 N.W.2d 309 (2020).
- 600 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF XANDRIA P.

Cite as 311 Neb. 591

in its de novo review of a juvenile proceeding. 14 Given the 

lack of demonstrated prejudice and the applicable standard 

of review which requires the exclusion of inadmissible evidence, Dale failed to show how the juvenile court’s other 

evidentiary rulings had any independent legal significance 

in the resolution of this matter. As such, Dale’s assignments 

of error concerning the improper admission of evidence are 

without merit.

Sufficiency of Evidence

[9,10] The purpose of the adjudication phase is to protect 

the interests of the child. 15 The parents’ rights are determined 

at the dispositional phase, not at the adjudication phase. 16 At 

the adjudication stage, in order for a juvenile court to assume 

jurisdiction of minor children under § 43-247(3)(a), the State 

must prove the allegations of the petition by a preponderance 

of the evidence. 17

Dale postulates that the forensic interview was insufficient 

evidence because Xandria referred to “dad” and not “Dale.” 

Dale thus argues the interview failed to establish a positive 

identification. However, Dale’s assertion is refuted by the 

record, because Xandria consistently referred to “dad” as the 

man living in her home who is married to her mother. As such, 

we conclude that the State sustained the adjudication petition 

by a preponderance of the evidence. This assignment of error 

is without merit.

14 In re Interest of D.P.Y. and J.L.Y., supra note 2.

15 In re Interest of Brian B. et al., 268 Neb. 870, 689 N.W.2d 184 (2004).

16 Id. See, also, In re Interest of Jeremy U. et al., 304 Neb. 734, 936 N.W.2d 

733 (2020); In re Interest of Justine J. et al., 286 Neb. 250, 835 N.W.2d 

674 (2013); In re Interest of Karlie D., 283 Neb. 581, 811 N.W.2d 214 

(2012); In re Interest of Sabrina K., 262 Neb. 871, 635 N.W.2d 727 

(2001); In re Interest of Kantril P. & Chenelle P., 257 Neb. 450, 598 

N.W.2d 729 (1999).

17 In re Interest of Brian B. et al., supra note 15.
- 601 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF XANDRIA P.

Cite as 311 Neb. 591

Motion to Dismiss

As a final matter, Dale argues the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over the petition, based on his allegation that the court 

did not enter a temporary custody order within 48 hours from 

the time Xandria was taken into custody, as required by Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 43-250(2) (Cum. Supp. 2020). Section 43-250(2) 

states in relevant part:

When a juvenile is taken into temporary custody pursuant to subdivision (2), (7), or (8) of section 43-248, and 

not released under subdivision (1)(a) of this section, the 

peace officer shall deliver the custody of such juvenile 

to [DHHS] which shall make a temporary placement of 

the juvenile in the least restrictive environment consistent 

with the best interests of the juvenile as determined by 

[DHHS]. . . . If a court order of temporary custody is not 

issued within forty-eight hours of taking the juvenile into 

custody, the temporary custody by [DHHS] shall terminate and the juvenile shall be returned to the custody of 

his or her parent, guardian, custodian, or relative.

Here, the record refutes Dale’s argument, because a temporary custody was issued within 48 hours. On January 8, 2021, 

at approximately 3:30 p.m., Gragert placed Xandria into protective custody and delivered her to the custody of DHHS. On 

January 9, at approximately noon, a Platte County judge signed 

a temporary ex parte placement order and emailed it to Gragert, 

DHHS personnel, and a deputy Platte County attorney.

Moreover, Dale’s argument is inapposite to our jurisprudence. In In re Interest of R.G.,

 18 we held the State’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements relating to 

the entry of an ex parte temporary detention order does not 

deprive the juvenile court of jurisdiction. Additionally, in In re 

18 See In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405, 470 N.W.2d 780 (1991), 

disapproved on other grounds, O’Connor v. Kaufman, 255 Neb. 120, 582 

N.W.2d 350 (1998).
- 602 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF XANDRIA P.

Cite as 311 Neb. 591

Interest of S.S.L.,

 19 we held that in the absence of direct statutory language to the contrary, failure to comply with the time 

limits imposed by § 43-250 did not mean that the juvenile 

court failed to acquire, or somehow lost, jurisdiction of the 

matter. As such, this assignment of error is without merit.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

Affirmed.

19 See In re Interest of S.S.L., 219 Neb. 911, 367 N.W.2d 710 (1985).