Court Opinion

ID: 9951821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 13:06:51.721607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:52.053538
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
03/19/2024 08:06 AM CDT

                                                       - 707 -
                             Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
                                  32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                                         IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                                              Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

                                   In re Interest of Harley S., a child
                                          under 18 years of age.
                                      State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
                                           Sherrie S., appellant.
                                                   ___ N.W.3d ___

                                        Filed March 19, 2024.    No. A-23-594.

                 1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juve-
                    nile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions indepen-
                    dently of the juvenile court’s findings.
                 2. Judgments: Statutes: Appeal and Error. When an appeal calls for
                    statutory interpretation or presents questions of law, an appellate court
                    must reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the deter-
                    mination made by the court below.
                 3. Juvenile Courts: Parental Rights: Proof. In order to demonstrate that
                    a preadjudication detention should continue, the State must prove by
                    a preponderance of the evidence that the custody of a juvenile should
                    remain in the care of the Department of Health and Human Services
                    pending adjudication.
                 4. Juvenile Courts: Parental Rights. The issue of whether reasonable
                    efforts were made to reunite the family must be reviewed by the juve-
                    nile court in situations including when the court continues a juvenile’s
                    out-of-home placement pending adjudication pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat.
                    § 43-254 (Cum. Supp. 2022).

                 Appeal from the County Court for Madison County: Ross A.
               Stoffer, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
                 Joel E. Carlson, of Stratton, DeLay, Doele, Carlson, Buettner
               & Stover, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
                 Nathan T. Eckstrom, Deputy Madison County Attorney, for
               appellee.
                             - 708 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

  Jeffrey L. Hrouda, guardian ad litem.
  Riedmann, Arterburn, and Welch, Judges.
  Welch, Judge.
                      I. INTRODUCTION
   Sherrie S., biological mother of Harley S., appeals from the
order of the Madison County Court, sitting in its capacity as a
juvenile court, finding that legal custody of Harley should be
continued with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) and that Harley should remain in out-of-
home placement to exclude Sherrie’s home. For the reasons set
forth herein, we reverse, and remand with directions.
                  II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
                         1. Background
   Sherrie is the mother of Harley, who was born in June 2023.
Harley is the subject of this appeal. Sherrie is also the mother
of four other children. Sherrie has relinquished her parental
rights to her two oldest children. Sherrie’s other two chil-
dren, 6-year-old Justyce S. and 1-year-old Valkyrie H., were
removed from Sherrie’s care in February 2023 due to concerns
of neglect. They tested positive for methamphetamine shortly
after being placed in foster care and remain in the legal cus-
tody of DHHS. Although Sherrie attempted to evade testing
by cutting her hair, samples from her fingernails and toenails
tested positive for methamphetamine. Of the 13 visits that
were scheduled with the children, 8 were canceled due to posi-
tive drug tests and 1 was canceled due to illness.
   In late March 2023, Sherrie entered residential treatment at
the “Mommy and Me” program run by Women’s Empowering
Life Line (WELL). The Mommy and Me program offers dual
diagnosis treatment for substance abuse and mental health and
is designed for women to keep their children with them during
their stay. Sherrie was still participating in the Mommy and
Me program when she gave birth to Harley in June 2023.
                              - 709 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

                     2. Juvenile Petition and
                        Order for Removal
   The day after Harley’s birth, while she was still in the hos-
pital, the State filed a juvenile petition alleging that Harley was
a juvenile under the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a)
(Reissue 2016) due to a lack of proper parental care by rea-
son of the fault or habits of Sherrie. Specifically, the petition
alleged, inter alia, that Sherrie
• has a history of using drugs;
• “has a history of romantic relationships with men who have a
  history of violent, felonious, and criminal behavior and sub-
  stance misuse”;
• failed to protect two of Harley’s siblings from witnessing
  domestic abuse committed against her;
• filed for two protection orders against her abuser, who was
  the father of at least one of her children, but promptly
  dropped the first request, and shortly after the second request,
  she asked to modify her request to allow telephone contact
  and stated that she only filed the request “‘because DHHS
  told me I have to or I will lose my kids’”;
• continues to have a relationship with her abuser;
• relinquished her parental rights to her two oldest children in
  2017; and
• admitted that Harley’s siblings Justyce and Valkyrie were
  children within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a), that Sherrie
  and the children tested positive for methamphetamine, that
  the children remain in the legal custody of DHHS and
  in out-of-home placement, and that DHHS “continues to
  recommend only supervised visitation at this time based
  on [Sherrie’s] limited progress, even though [Sherrie] is in
  residential substance abuse treatment in a program that does
  have accommodations for children when appropriate.”
   Also on June 23, 2023, the State filed a motion for a tem-
porary custody order, which was granted by the court on June
26. The order provided that Harley was to be taken into emer-
gency custody by law enforcement and placed with DHHS
                             - 710 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

because Harley was less than 1 month old; Sherrie has been
in relationships with violent men, including Harley’s putative
father, who is currently incarcerated; and that Sherrie has indi-
cated a desire to resume living with the putative father after
he is released from incarceration. The court further found that
“the foregoing facts constituted an emergency, which threat-
ened the safety of [Harley],” and
      the following efforts, which were reasonable and active
      under the circumstances, have been attempted to pre-
      vent removal of [Harley], but removal was necessary
      for [Harley’s] safety: [Sherrie] has had other cases
      where services were provided which were unsuccess-
      ful and where [Sherrie] relinquished her parental rights.
      [Sherrie] has current active cases where services are
      being provided.
(Emphasis omitted.) The court ordered that all visitation be
fully supervised; that Sherrie not use or possess controlled
substances without a prescription; that Sherrie submit to ran-
dom urinalysis at least two times per week; and that if Sherrie
possessed an illegal controlled substance, had a positive test
for an illegal controlled substance, willfully failed to appear
for a drug test, or willfully failed to provide a sample for drug
testing in the 7 days before a visit, that visit shall not occur.
This order resulted in Harley’s removal from Sherrie’s care
prior to being released from the hospital.

                  3. Sherrie’s Objection to
                    Removal and Hearing
   On June 27, 2023, Sherrie filed an objection to the removal
of Harley from her physical custody as being contrary to
Harley’s best interests. The combined hearing on the State’s
motion for temporary placement and Sherrie’s objections
thereto was held on July 6. At the combined hearing, testi-
mony was adduced from two witnesses: Sherrie and Lynnette
Otero, a child and family services specialist with DHHS.
Evidence adduced included an affidavit from Jessica Parr, the
                             - 711 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

residential program director for WELL; an affidavit from Seth
Rivest, a counselor at WELL; and the September 2016 and
May 2023 psychological evaluations of Sherrie conducted by
Mark P. Hannappel, Ph.D.

                   (a) Psychological Evaluation
   Hannappel conducted psychological evaluations of Sherrie
in September 2016 and May 2023. The May 2023 evalua-
tion was conducted prior to Harley’s birth and was part of
an overall process to determine whether Sherrie could be an
adequate parent to Justyce and Valkyrie. The 2023 evaluation
noted that
         Sherrie had a psychological evaluation in 2016 when
      [DHHS] had custody of two older children. In [the 2016]
      evaluation, she was diagnosed with many conditions,
      but the overall arching determination stated that Sherrie
      is lower functioning and has no long term potential to
      improve her ability to become an adequate parent. Sherrie
      “has limited insight into her problems with adult func-
      tioning including her ability to parent the children.” At
      that time, Sherrie was pregnant with Justyce and went
      through . . . counseling and parenting classes.
The 2023 evaluation noted that issues present during the earlier
2016 evaluation were also present in the current case and that
even though DHHS implemented intensive family preservation,
Sherrie made minimal progress.
   Hannappel explained that parenting inventories suggested
that Sherrie’s responses “were in the medium to high-risk
range across categories of parenting techniques with various
aged children” and that she “has significant unrealistic expecta-
tions about developmental capabilities.” The evaluation stated
that Sherrie
• lacks an understanding of normal child growth and develop-
  ment, as well as a basic understanding of normal develop-
  mental needs;
• has problems handling the stress of parenting;
                              - 712 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

• has limited levels of empathy for her children;
• has a limited capacity to nurture her children;
• has a limited ability to develop healthy and age-appropriate
  parenting strategies to manage her children’s behavior, due
  to limitations in her intellectual abilities and growing up in a
  dysfunctional childhood environment; and
• lacks insight into her limited knowledge about parenting and
  appears to have a limited interest in learning about childhood
  development and healthy parenting.
Additionally, Sherrie’s “responses suggest a significant like-
lihood that she will use the children to meet her needs as
opposed to her meeting the needs of the children.”
   The 2023 evaluation stated that Sherrie’s intellectual abili-
ties appeared to be in the borderline to low average range and
that Sherrie has poor insight “in terms of understanding abili-
ties, limits, and potential risks factors posed to her children”
and her “[c]urrent and historical judgment has been fair to
poor, especially related to choices about intimate partners and
taking care of the basic to complex needs of the children.”
The 2023 evaluation further stated that
      [t]he persistent and ongoing nature of her psychological
      and interpersonal problems continues to indicate that she
      will have significant difficulty altering those thinking
      and behavioral patterns in a manner that will allow her
      to be an adequate parent to her children. This was also
      the case for her two older children. It appears the pattern
      has repeated with her two younger children, and quite
      likely will occur with her unborn child.
         She has limited capability to learn basic to complex
      behavioral parenting strategies in terms of nurturing,
      rule setting[,] and limit setting that can be effective
      with children because of limitations in her psychologi-
      cal and psychiatric issues noted throughout this report.
      Intellectually and psychologically, she has quite limited
      personal resources to implement such strategies on a
      consistent basis. She has difficulty managing her own
                        - 713 -
   Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
        32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
            IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                 Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

functioning as an adult at a basic level. It would take
significant effort on her part to alter thinking, emo-
tional, and behavioral patterns that have been develop-
ing since childhood. When considering her history, it
seems unlikely that she would make such changes in a
period that would be in the best interest[s] of her chil-
dren. Unless she demonstrates the ability to consistently
manage her own adult issues and stressors, then it is not
likely that she will be able to consistently provide a nur-
turing and structured home environment for her children.
She has questionable abilities to be a good single parent
because of her dysfunctional past under the best of cir-
cumstances. Her parenting abilities deteriorate when she
is involved with an intimate partner that is dysfunctional.
Personality testing and interview information suggested
a significant lack of insight into her personality prob-
lems, how those personality problems evolved, and how
she might go about altering such negative and habitual
personality problems. Parenting assessment results, inter-
view information, collateral information, and background
provided by [DHHS] indicated limitations in her under-
standing of basic to complex parenting and child devel-
opmental issues. Such information suggested that she has
unrealistic expectations about developmental capabilities
of various aged children. Such individuals often have
great difficulty handling parenting stresses. She will have
difficulty recalling and developing alternative healthy
parenting strategies that are age appropriate to manage
her children’s behavior, especially under stress. Since she
does not typically have her adult needs met in a healthy
manner, she will expect her children to meet those needs
in various unhealthy ways. People who respond as she
has, have poor self-esteem, poor self-awareness, and a
poor social life. The personality limitations noted above
will make it quite difficult for her to make long-term
                            - 714 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                 IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                      Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

     changes that will result in her providing a healthy and
     structured environment for her children.
   The 2023 evaluation stated that Sherrie appeared to have
limited potential to improve her ability to become an ade-
quate parent. She has made limited progress despite receiving
intensive services and interventions, because she continues
to have problems following through with basic expectations.
Any improvements she made were short lived, with Sherrie
quickly reverting to parenting her younger children in the
same way that she parented her older children. This pattern
“strongly suggests that she will not likely benefit from fur-
ther intervention.” Hannappel opined that Sherrie “will not
consistently do what she needs to do for the long term to pro-
vide a healthy home for her children” and recommended that
Sherrie’s visitation continue to be supervised.

                        (b) Otero Testimony
    Otero testified that in December 2022, she became the case-
worker for a noncourt-involved case involving Sherrie, Justyce,
and Valkyrie. That case became court-involved in February
2023, at which time temporary custody of the children was
placed with DHHS. Otero testified that even prior to Harley’s
birth, she had concerns about Harley’s remaining with Sherrie
at WELL. Those concerns included Sherrie’s use of metham-
phetamine during her pregnancy, her lack of parenting skills,
and her inability to make good decisions. Otero also expressed
concerns regarding Sherrie’s becoming easily overwhelmed
during visits, the possibility of Harley’s being exposed to
illegal substances, and Justyce’s severe behavioral issues and
diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, due to Sherrie’s
lack of parenting and ability to make good decisions.
    Otero acknowledged that since residing at WELL, Sherrie
has made improvements in that Sherrie is healthier, engages
better with the children, has not had a positive drug test,
and was participating in supervised visitation, but Sherrie’s
interactions with Otero have remained similar. And although
                             - 715 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

Sherrie was participating in supervised visitation, Otero did
not anticipate recommending unsupervised visitation in the
immediate future, due to her concerns regarding Sherrie’s
parenting skills, Sherrie’s tendency to become overwhelmed
easily, and a disparity between the amount of attention Sherrie
provides to Justyce compared to Valkyrie. Otero explained that
“Justyce has negative behaviors, almost dangerous behaviors
in an attempt to get [Sherrie’s] attention.”
   Otero also explained that if Harley was placed with Sherrie
in the Mommy and Me program, Sherrie would not be contin-
uously supervised. Otero also expressed concern that “Sherrie
tends to worry about herself more than the children. I am
concerned about her oversleeping or not hearing cries and
either not hearing or choosing not to tend to the baby if she’s
crying.” Otero explained that Sherrie overslept and was 1½
hours late to her induction for Harley’s birth, Sherrie had slept
through her alarm and missed transportation to her visita-
tion, and she had been late for 7 out of 16 video calls with
the children.

                       (c) Affidavit of Parr
   Parr’s affidavit set forth that she is the residential program
director for WELL. As the residential program director, Parr
oversees the services provided for participants in the Mommy
and Me program. She explained that the Mommy and Me pro-
gram provides a safe place for children while the mother is
in treatment and addresses a common barrier for women who
seek and maintain recovery while caring for children on a
full-time basis. The children of residents can participate in the
Mommy and Me program when physical placement is with
the mother, even though legal custody remains with DHHS.
Parr explained that a fundamental aspect of recovery is con-
nection and building healthy relationships.
   Parr also noted that the Mommy and Me program has “a
family advocate who supports the mothers in learning par-
enting skills, developmental milestones, disciplinary actions
                             - 716 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

that are age appropriate. The family advocate is here 5 days
a week and a Recovery Coach is here 7 days a week. We are
staffed 24/7.” She further stated that the program conducts
      a minimum of hourly checks of all residents during [wak-
      ing] hours and checks every two hours during the night.
      Our facility is an apartment complex that is secure. Each
      mom shares an apartment with another mom. They have
      1 bedroom for themselves and their children. Then they
      share a common space of a living room, bathroom and
      kitchen with the other mom.
         . . . Each set of moms in each apartment cooks their
      own meals regularly and completes chores so they are
      getting practice with taking care of and managing their
      home. We have cameras in each apartment that are moni-
      tored by the on-site staff. [Parr] along with the Executive
      Director [has] access to live feeds on [their phones.] All
      apartment doors within the facility are required to remain
      open at all times.
         [There are] opportunities for residents to acclimate as
      they move through the levels of the program. The first
      part of their stay is the most restrictive as they move
      through the levels they gain additional privileges.
   WELL attempts to provide individualized programs for resi-
dents to address their individual needs while meeting program
requirements. All residents are assigned a licensed clinician
with whom residents meet once per week for the duration of
their residential stay. Additionally, WELL offers peer support
services, case management services, and health and well-
ness services. WELL also conducts random drug testing a
minimum of two times per week. And although most mothers
have their children on site, WELL makes accommodations for
mothers who do not have custody of their children to have
visits with them and will accommodate travel for mothers to
visit children who are placed farther away.
   Parr explained that the Mommy and Me program has three
levels of care and that Sherrie was in the “Dual Disorder”
                              - 717 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

program, which is the highest level of care. The “Dual
Disorder” program “offers more focus on substance use and
mental health and requires that [Sherrie] participate in 42
hours of programming per week.” According to Parr, when
Sherrie is ready, she can be moved to the medium level of care
and, if needed, could eventually be moved to the lowest level
of care that would “provide her even more significant time in
our program with her children.”

                     (d) Affidavit of Rivest
   Rivest is a residential counselor for WELL, who provides
counseling services for participants in the Mommy and Me
program, including Sherrie. Rivest stated that prior to Sherrie’s
admission into the program, she demonstrated difficulties with
maintaining effective parenting, due to barriers caused by
her substance use, lack of positive social support, and mental
health concerns, including emotional regulation, impulse con-
trol, and boundary setting.
   According to Rivest, since entering the program in March
2023, Sherrie has begun addressing all of those issues. Rivest
stated that Sherrie has demonstrated
• the ability to refrain from substance use, as evidenced by
  negative urinalysis results and her willingness to identify and
  implement relapse prevention strategies;
• progress in her ability to seek positive social support, as evi-
  denced by improvement in her ability to maintain positive
  relationships with her peers at the treatment facility, as well
  as others within the local recovery community; and
• progress with her willingness to address mental health issues,
  including those related to emotional regulation, impulse con-
  trol, and boundary setting, as evidenced by her willingness
  to continue process treatment work related to those areas
  from both “Dialectical Behavioral Therapy” and “Cognitive
  Behavioral Therapy” approaches.
   According to Rivest, Sherrie participates in visits with
her children, appears open to feedback from her DHHS
                             - 718 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

caseworker, actively communicates about necessary changes
to improve her relationship with her caseworker, and appears
motivated to sustain continued progress in her ability to func-
tion in all areas of her life more effectively.
                     (e) Sherrie’s Testimony
   Sherrie testified that most mothers in the Mommy and Me
program have their children with them and that she would
like Harley to be with her too. She further stated that she has
been clean and sober since beginning the Mommy and Me
program in March 2023 and was willing to abide by a safety
plan in order to facilitate Harley’s being returned to her care.
She explained that she had changed during her 3 months in
the program, noting that this was her “first time in the treat-
ment facility” and that she has learned “new coping skills and
the dangers of . . . my addiction. And, honestly, I learned so
much since I have got into treatment that I . . . don’t want to
go down that road ever.”
                       4. Court Order
   On July 6, 2023, the court overruled Sherrie’s objection
to out-of-home placement and stated that “[a]ll prior orders
remain in full force and effect including placement and visita-
tion.” Sherrie has timely appealed to this court.
               III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
   Sherrie has identified 11 assignments of error but argues
only that the court erred in (1) failing to make certain written
findings required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-254 (Cum. Supp.
2022) regarding the child’s health, safety, and welfare and
regarding reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family
prior to out-of-home placement and (2) continuing Harley’s
out-of-home placement because it was not supported by the
evidence and not in Harley’s best interests.
               IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
   [1] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on
the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the
                             - 719 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

juvenile court’s findings. In re Interest of Jessalina M., 315
Neb. 535, 997 N.W.2d 778 (2023).
   [2] When an appeal calls for statutory interpretation or pre­
sents questions of law, an appellate court must reach an inde-
pendent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination
made by the court below. Id.
                         V. ANALYSIS
             1. Failure to Make Written Findings
   Sherrie’s first assignment of error is that the court erred in
failing to make certain written findings required by § 43-254
regarding Harley’s health, safety, and welfare and whether
there were reasonable efforts made to preserve and reunify
the family prior to out-of-home placement. She also contends
that “the record and the [court’s] order are devoid of any
written determinations or otherwise of any reasonable efforts
having been made as required by [Neb. Rev. Stat. §§] 43-284
[(Reissue 2016)] and 43-283.01 [(Cum. Supp. 2022)].” Brief
for appellant at 21.
   [3] In order to demonstrate that a preadjudication deten-
tion should continue, the State must prove by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that the custody of a juvenile should
remain in the care of DHHS pending adjudication. In re
Interest of Stephanie H. et al., 10 Neb. App. 908, 639 N.W.2d
668 (2002).
   Sherrie’s assignment of error focuses primarily on § 43-254,
which provides:
         Pending the adjudication of any case, and subject to
      subdivision (5) of section 43-251.01, if it appears that
      the need for placement or further detention exists, the
      juvenile may be (1) placed or detained a reasonable
      period of time on order of the court in the temporary
      custody of either the person having charge of the juve-
      nile or some other suitable person, (2) kept in some
      suitable place provided by the city or county authori-
      ties, (3) placed in any proper and accredited charitable
                             - 720 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

     institution, (4) placed in a state institution, except any
     adult correctional facility, when proper facilities are
     available and the only local facility is a city or county
     jail, at the expense of the committing county on a per
     diem basis as determined from time to time by the head
     of the particular institution, (5) placed in the temporary
     care and custody of [DHHS] when it does not appear
     that there is any need for secure detention, except that
     beginning October 1, 2013, no juvenile alleged to be a
     juvenile described in subdivision (1), (2), (3)(b), or (4)
     of section 43-247 shall be placed in the care and custody
     or under the supervision of [DHHS], or (6) beginning
     October 1, 2013, offered supervision options as deter-
     mined pursuant to section 43-260.01, through the Office
     of Probation Administration as ordered by the court and
     agreed to in writing by the parties, if the juvenile is
     alleged to be a juvenile described in subdivision (1), (2),
     (3)(b), or (4) of section 43-247 and it does not appear
     that there is any need for secure detention. The court
     may assess the cost of such placement or detention in
     whole or in part to the parent of the juvenile as provided
     in section 43-290.
        If a juvenile has been removed from his or her parent,
     guardian, or custodian pursuant to subdivision (2) of
     section 43-248, the court may enter an order continu-
     ing detention or placement upon a written determina-
     tion that continuation of the juvenile in his or her home
     would be contrary to the health, safety, or welfare of
     such juvenile and that reasonable efforts were made to
     preserve and reunify the family if required under section
     43-283.01.
(Emphasis supplied.)
   The first paragraph of § 43-254 does not discuss written
findings. In support of her argument, Sherrie relies upon the
second paragraph of § 43-254. By its plain language, the sec-
ond paragraph of § 43-254 requires written determinations
                             - 721 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

only when a juvenile has been removed “pursuant to subdi-
vision (2) of section 43-248.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-248(2)
(Cum. Supp. 2022) provides that “[a] peace officer may take
a juvenile into temporary custody without a warrant or order
of the court and proceed as provided in section 43-250 when
[the] juvenile is seriously endangered in his or her surround-
ings and immediate removal appears to be necessary for
the juvenile’s protection.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Nebraska
Supreme Court has previously held that, by its terms, similar
statutory language contained in a prior version of § 43-254
applies only when a juvenile is taken into temporary custody
without a court order. In re Interest of Joshua M. et al., 251
Neb. 614, 558 N.W.2d 548 (1997).
   Here, Harley was not taken into temporary custody without
a warrant or order; she was taken into temporary custody pur-
suant to the court’s June 26, 2023, court order. Accordingly,
we reject Sherrie’s argument that the court was required to
make written findings pursuant to § 43-254.
   Sherrie separately claims that “the record and the [court’s]
order are devoid of any written determinations or otherwise
of any reasonable efforts having been made as required by
[§§] 43-284 and 43-283.01.” Brief for appellant at 21.
   The last paragraph of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-284 (Reissue
2016) provides:
         The court may enter a dispositional order removing a
      juvenile from his or her home upon a written determina-
      tion that continuation in the home would be contrary to
      the health, safety, or welfare of such juvenile and that
      reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family have
      been made if required under section 43-283.01.
And Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-283.01(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022)
requires that “reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve
and reunify families prior to the placement of a juvenile in
foster care to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the
juvenile from the juvenile’s home and to make it possible
for a juvenile to safely return to the juvenile’s home,” except
                            - 722 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                 IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                      Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

under certain circumstances that are not applicable to the
instant case.
   [4] The Nebraska Legislature codified § 43-283.01 in 1998,
the year after In re Interest of Joshua M. et al., supra, was
decided, to clarify that reasonable efforts were required by
the State in all situations when a juvenile is removed from
the parental home, subject only to the exceptions delin-
eated in § 43-283.01 itself. The Nebraska Supreme Court has
determined that the issue of whether reasonable efforts were
made to reunite the family must be reviewed by the juvenile
court in situations including when the court continues a juve-
nile’s out-of-home placement pending adjudication pursuant
to § 43-254. See, In re Interest of DeWayne G. & Devon G.,
263 Neb. 43, 638 N.W.2d 510 (2002); In re Interest of Andrew
M. et al., 11 Neb. App. 80, 643 N.W.2d 401 (2002).
   Thus, reading §§ 43-283.01 and 43-284 together, in deter-
mining whether Harley’s out-of-home placement should be
continued, the court was required to consider whether con-
tinuation in the parental home would be contrary to the
health, safety, and welfare of such juvenile; to consider
whether reasonable efforts had been made to preserve and
reunify the family; and to make written determinations as to
those findings.
   The court’s July 6, 2023, order overruling Sherrie’s objec-
tion to out-of-home placement did not state that continuation
in the home would be contrary to Harley’s health, safety, and
welfare, nor did the order state that reasonable efforts had
been made to preserve and reunify the family. The order did
state that “[a]ll prior orders remain in full force and effect
including placement and visitation.” The court’s June 26 ex
parte order specifically provided that the facts involved in
the case
      constituted an emergency, which threatened the safety
      of [Harley], and the following efforts, which were rea-
      sonable and active under the circumstances, have been
      attempted to prevent removal of [Harley,] but removal
                             - 723 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

      was necessary for [Harley’s] safety: [Sherrie] has had
      other cases where services were provided which were
      unsuccessful and where [Sherrie] relinquished her paren-
      tal rights. [Sherrie] has current active cases where ser-
      vices are being provided.
(Emphasis omitted.)
   Although we acknowledge that the court’s July 6, 2023,
order references its findings governing the ex parte hearing,
the court failed to provide a written determination governing
these essential issues after evidence was presented at the dis-
positional hearing. And even though we have previously held
that a juvenile court’s order that included broad language that
“‘the [S]tate [met its] burden with respect to [its] protective
custody request’ . . . sufficiently encompassed a written deter-
mination that reasonable efforts were made to preserve and
reunify the family in accordance with § 43-254,” the court’s
order in the instant case did not include broad findings, but,
rather, failed to incorporate any written findings regarding the
required statutory elements. See In re Interest of Lukah C. et
al., No. A-23-300, 2023 WL 8590735 at *6 (Neb. App. Dec.
12, 2023). We also note that the juvenile court made relevant
and extensive findings of fact orally at the close of the hear-
ing. However, those findings were not included in the court’s
written order. Because the court’s order failed to make the
findings required by §§ 43-283.01 and 43-284, we reverse the
court’s order and remand the cause for the court to determine
whether placement of Harley in Sherrie’s home would be
contrary to Harley’s health, safety, and welfare, and whether
reasonable efforts had been made to preserve and reunify the
family and, if so, to enter an order containing these required
findings based upon the evidence adduced at the July 6 dis-
positional hearing.

               2. Out-of-Home Placement
   Having determined that the court’s order was insufficient
to comply with the requirement that the court make certain
                             - 724 -
        Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
             32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF HARLEY S.
                       Cite as 32 Neb. App. 707

written findings, we need not consider Sherrie’s second assign-
ment of error that the court erred in continuing Harley’s out-of-
home placement, because it was not supported by the evidence
and not in Harley’s best interests. See Nesbitt v. Frakes, 300
Neb. 1, 911 N.W.2d 598 (2018) (appellate court is not obli-
gated to engage in analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate
case and controversy before it).
                     VI. CONCLUSION
   Having determined that the court’s order was insufficient
to comply with the requirement that the court make written
findings required by §§ 43-283.01 and 43-284, we reverse,
and remand for the court to enter an order, based upon the
evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing, that complies
with those statutes.
                Reversed and remanded with directions.