Court Opinion

ID: 9669529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:58:25.885942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:57.671251
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting in part.
While I concur in the judgment of the court in these cases, I do not agree that a juvenile court at a hearing on the motion or petition for termination of parental rights can consider evidence previously adduced in the same proceeding only if it has been “transcribed” and is presented as a document.
In State v. Norwood, 203 Neb. 201, 204, 277 N.W.2d 709, 711 (1979), we noted that the termination matter before the juvenile court “was a continuation of the same proceeding.” And in In re Interest of N.M. and J.M., ante p. 690, 484 N.W.2d 77 (1992), we noted that in a case other than a juvenile case, a trial court must consider the evidence adduced from the first day of the proceeding. This same principle is applicable in juvenile cases.
The statement quoted from In Interest of Adkins, 298 N.W.2d 273 (Iowa 1980), which is taken out of context, does not support a contrary view. Unlike the Nebraska Juvenile Code, the Iowa statute prescribes more than one procedure for termination of parental rights. In the Adkins case, Chief Justice Reynoldson reviewed and discussed parts of the record in the earlier child in need of assistance (CHINA) proceeding, which had been commenced in 1977. .
After discussing various provisions of the Iowa Code, including the provisions in chapters 232 and 600A, the Adkins *715opinion states:
These related statutes reveal a legislative scheme to provide for termination in the same court in which the CHINA adjudication has taken place, as a logical resolution of a child’s “limbo” CHINA status where clear and convincing evidence discloses the existence of those prerequisites itemized in subsection 232.114(5). In these circumstances must the evidence and proceedings in the underlying CHINA case be replayed in the same court in the termination proceeding?
It is true, of course, that ordinarily judicial notice may not be taken of court proceedings in related but wholly different cases. [Citations omitted.]
However, in special circumstances exceptions to this rule have been formulated and applied. ... In every case we have found, courts adjudicating a termination action have taken judicial notice of the underlying prior, proceeding involving the subject child or children. In re Welfare of Clausen, 289 N.W.2d 153, 156-57 (Minn. 1980); In re Interest of Norwood, 203 Neb. 201, 204-05, 277 N.W.2d 709, 711 (1979); see In re Adoption of K., 417 S.W.2d 702, 704-05 (Mo.Ct.App.1967) (appellate court reviewing adoption proceeding judicially noticed the record filed in a prior neglect case appeal). Although [the appellant] attempts to distinguish Clausen and Norwood because of statutory and rule differences, we are persuaded the rationale of those cases should be adopted here. Under subsection 232.114(5), CHINA and termination proceedings are not separate and distinct actions, but are interdependent and interwoven. The CHINA action may be a prelude or first step to termination of the parent-child relationship. [Citations omitted.] Many of our decisions disclose that a termination action often follows directly from a prior CHINA adjudication. [Citations omitted.]
We hold it is permissible for a trial court in a subsection 232.114(5) termination proceeding to judicially notice the prior CHINA case, including the evidence, providing certain safeguards are followed. Papers requested to be *716noticed must be marked, identified, and made a part of the record. Testimony must be transcribed, properly certified, marked and made a part of the record. Trial court’s ruling in the termination proceeding should state and describe what it is the court is judicially noticing. Otherwise, a meaningful review is impossible.
(Emphasis supplied.) Adkins, 298 N.W.2d at 277-78.
It is not clear from the opinion in the Adkins case whether the judge who heard the termination proceeding was the same judge who had heard the evidence in the earlier CHINA proceeding. If the termination hearing is before a judge who has not heard the evidence presented at an earlier hearing, it would be impossible for the court to consider evidence that has been presented to a different court unless it has been transcribed and presented as a document. Ordinarily, such a problem is not presented in proceedings under the Nebraska Juvenile Code.
Hastings, C. J., joins in this dissent.