Opinion ID: 4188124
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: analysis

Text: In her first assignment of error, Latika claims that her procedural due process rights were violated by the unreasonable delay of more than 8 months between the issuance of the ex parte order for immediate temporary custody and that of the protective custody order, sometimes referred to as the “detention order.” Although Latika’s objections to the process tended to focus on the initial removal of Carmelo, the court recognized on the record that the duration of the proceedings had been prolonged. We find merit to Latika’s assignment of error claiming a denial of due process. [4-6] The proper starting point for legal analysis when the State involves itself in family relations is always the - 813 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports IN RE INTEREST OF CARMELO G. Cite as 296 Neb. 805 fundamental constitutional rights of a parent. In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685, 844 N.W.2d 65 (2014). The interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617, 843 N.W.2d 820 (2014), citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000). The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child is afforded due process protection. Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043, 736 N.W.2d 365 (2007); In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232, 674 N.W.2d 442 (2004). Such due process rights include the right to be free from an unreasonable delay in providing a parent a meaningful hearing after the entry of an ex parte temporary custody order. 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). We have previously described the three-stage analysis employed for a claim that one is being deprived of a liberty interest without due process of law. See, Sherman T. v. Karyn N., 286 Neb. 468, 837 N.W.2d 746 (2013); In re Interest of R.G., supra. We have undertaken that analysis. [7,8] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-248(2) (Cum. Supp. 2014) allows the State to take a juvenile into custody without a warrant or order of the court when it appears the juvenile “is seriously endangered in his or her surroundings and immediate removal appears to be necessary for the juvenile’s protection.” However, the parent retains a liberty interest in the continuous custody of his or her child. In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., supra. An ex parte order authorizing temporary custody with DHHS is permitted because of its short duration and the requirement of further action by the State before custody can be continued. Id. See, also, In re Interest of R.G., supra. But “the State may not, in exercising its parens patriae interest, unreasonably delay in notifying a parent that the State has taken emergency action regarding that parent’s child - 814 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports IN RE INTEREST OF CARMELO G. Cite as 296 Neb. 805 nor unreasonably delay in providing the parent a meaningful hearing.” In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. at 419, 470 N.W.2d at 790 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, following the issuance of an ex parte order for temporary immediate custody, “[a] prompt detention hearing is required in order to protect the parent against the risk of an erroneous deprivation of his or her parental interests.” In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. at 246, 674 N.W.2d at 456. See, also, In re Interest of R.G., supra. In the present case, the State filed its petition on January 5, 2016, and on that same day, the juvenile court filed the ex parte order for immediate custody. DHHS took custody of Carmelo. The State moved for Carmelo’s continued detention. The protective custody hearing was set for January 12, which was 7 days after the filing of the ex parte order. The judge then recused himself, and the protective custody hearing was rescheduled for January 21. The hearing began on January 21, which was 16 days following the entry of the ex parte order. Receipt of evidence could not be completed in the time allotted for the hearing, and this hearing and several subsequent hearings were continued. Hearings were held on February 10 and 24, March 10, May 13, and August 2. The hearing concluded on August 2. The juvenile court filed its protective custody order on September 19, which was more than 8 months after the ex parte order for immediate custody was filed. Latika argues that the more than 8-month delay between the entry of the ex parte order and that of the protective custody order was unreasonable and violated her due process rights. In contrast, Carmelo’s guardian ad litem and the State contend that the delay between the issuance of the ex parte order and that of the protective custody order was not unreasonable, because Latika received notice for each of the hearings and received services and visitation with Carmelo during this period of time. The guardian ad litem and the State also assert that “the elapsed time was for the purpose of providing - 815 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports IN RE INTEREST OF CARMELO G. Cite as 296 Neb. 805 [Latika] a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Brief for appellee guardian ad litem at 14. We disagree with the argument of the guardian ad litem and the State to the effect that the period of delay was a benefit to Latika and Carmelo. Instead, we determine that the more than 8-month delay between the entry of the ex parte order and that of the protective custody order was unreasonable and resulted in a violation of Latika’s procedural due process rights. As stated above, an ex parte order authorizing temporary custody with DHHS is permitted because of its short duration, and a prompt detention hearing is required in order to protect the parent against the risk of an erroneous deprivation of his or her parental interests. See In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232, 674 N.W.2d 442 (2004). In 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), we recognized that parents have due process rights to be free from an unreasonable delay in providing the parents a meaningful hearing after an ex parte order for immediate custody is filed. In In re Interest of R.G., we concluded that the mother’s due process rights were not violated by a 14-day delay between the entry of an ex parte order and that of a detention order when she was given an opportunity to be heard at the detention hearing and was allowed to visit her children in the interim. We cautioned, however, that “the 14 days elapsing between the entry of the ex parte order and the hearing poise the procedures employed in this case on the brink of unreasonableness.” Id. at 423, 470 N.W.2d at 792. In this case, the detention hearing commenced on January 21, 2016, which was 16 days after the ex parte order was filed. This is 2 days more than the time that elapsed between the entry of the ex parte order and the hearing in In re Interest of R.G., and in that case, we cautioned that the 14-day period left the procedures employed “on the brink of unreasonableness.” 238 Neb. at 423, 420 N.W.2d at 792. The protective custody - 816 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports IN RE INTEREST OF CARMELO G. Cite as 296 Neb. 805 hearing in this case was continued over a period of several months, until it finally concluded on August 2. Thereafter, the juvenile court filed its protective custody order on September 19, which was more than 8 months after the ex parte order was filed. The allowance of such an ex parte temporary action is a reasonable reaction to a perceived emergency situation. See In re Interest of R.G., supra. However, in exercising its parens patriae interest and taking such ex parte temporary action, the State may not unreasonably delay in providing the parent a meaningful hearing. See id. This is because a parent has a liberty interest in raising his or her child, a concept which encompasses the child’s custody, care, and control. See Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617, 843 N.W.2d 820 (2014). The more than 8-month delay in this case between the filing of the ex parte order and that of the protective custody order is too long a duration and results in interference with Latika’s liberty interest in raising Carmelo. This court is well aware of the many challenges involved in scheduling and completing evidentiary hearings in jurisdictions with crowded dockets, including the reality that lawyers are sometimes unable to complete their evidence in the time allotted and continuances are necessary. But despite these challenges, we have recognized that the juvenile court is responsible for managing its docket. That responsibility includes providing prompt detention hearings on an ex parte protective custody order, and in this case, we cannot find that the protective custody hearing was initiated or resolved promptly. The delay in this case was unreasonable, and Latika’s procedural due process rights were violated because of this unreasonable delay. We note that the parties did not directly object to the continuances of the hearing. However, this does not impact our analysis. In In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349, 355-56, 481 N.W.2d 905, 911 (1992), we stated that “[a] delay of 8 months between the time a child is ‘temporarily’ taken from the child’s parent until the child and parent are given the - 817 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports IN RE INTEREST OF CARMELO G. Cite as 296 Neb. 805 evidentiary safeguards of an adjudication hearing cannot be condoned, even when, as here, the parties agreed to repeated continuances.” (Emphasis supplied.) We similarly agree in the instant case that the 8-month delay between the issuance of the ex parte order and that of the protective custody order cannot be condoned, even though the parties did not object to the repeated continuances of the protective custody hearing. We determine that Latika’s procedural due process rights were violated. Therefore, we vacate the September 19, 2016, order of the juvenile court and remand the cause for further proceedings. [9] Because our determination of Latika’s first assignment of error is dispositive, we do not reach her second assignment of error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before it. Medicine Creek v. Middle Republican NRD, ante p. 1, 892 N.W.2d 74 (2017).