Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed two consolidated juvenile proceedings concerning the adjudication and custody of Sloane O. The court affirmed the adjudication in the father's appeal because he assigned no errors and the record showed no plain error. In the mother's appeal, the court held that she was a party by virtue of her status as the child's biological mother and that the parental preference doctrine applied, reversing the denial of custody and remanding for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Christopher's appeal should be affirmed when his brief contained no assignments of error.
- Whether Sabrina, the biological mother identified on Sloane's birth certificate, was required to intervene before seeking custody in the abuse-and-neglect proceeding.
- Whether the juvenile court properly denied Sabrina's motion for custody despite the parental preference doctrine and without sufficient evidence that she was unfit or had forfeited her custodial right.
- Whether Sabrina's untimely challenge to the adjudication order was within the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Holdings
- When an appellant's brief contains no separate assignments-of-error section, the appellate court may proceed as though no brief was filed or review the record for plain error. The court reviewed Christopher's appeal for plain error and found none.
- A biological parent identified as the child's parent under the Nebraska Juvenile Code is a party to the juvenile proceeding and need not file a motion to intervene merely to seek custody.
- The parental preference doctrine applies even when a child has been adjudicated in an abuse-and-neglect proceeding. A biological or adoptive parent is presumptively entitled to custody unless the State affirmatively shows parental unfitness or forfeiture of the custodial right.
- The Supreme Court had jurisdiction over Sabrina's timely appeal from the order denying custody but not over assignments challenging the earlier adjudication order, which she did not appeal within 30 days.
Key quotations
“Under the parental preference principle, a parent’s natural right to the custody of his or her child trumps the interests of strangers, including the State, to the parent-child relationship and the preferences of the child.” (903)
“Sabrina was, and is, presumed to be the best person to parent Sloane unless and until the State shows otherwise.” (904)
Factual background
The State alleged that Christopher used excessive discipline against Sloane, causing injury, and failed to provide proper parental care and supervision. Evidence included Sloane's account that Christopher struck her, restrained her, and chained her to a couch, along with photographs of injuries and testimony from a DHHS caseworker; Christopher disputed or minimized the allegations. Sabrina, who was identified as Sloane's mother on the birth certificate, sought custody and testified that she was fit to care for Sloane. Sloane was also subject to a separate probation docket, and the juvenile court had placed her in DHHS custody with out-of-home placement.
Procedural history
The State filed an abuse-and-neglect petition and obtained ex parte immediate custody of Sloane. The juvenile court adjudicated Sloane under § 43-247(3)(a), placed her temporarily in the custody of DHHS with placement excluding the parental home, and later denied Sabrina's motion for custody. Christopher filed no assignments of error, so the Supreme Court reviewed his appeal for plain error and found none. Sabrina timely appealed the custody denial but did not timely appeal the adjudication order; the Supreme Court held that she was already a party by virtue of being Sloane's mother, applied the parental preference doctrine, and remanded for further custody proceedings.
Remand instructions
The denial of Sabrina's motion for custody was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The juvenile court was instructed to consider current information regarding Sloane and to apply the parental preference doctrine, while recognizing that Sabrina's custodial right remains subject to the probation docket's placement-and-care responsibilities. Christopher's adjudication appeal was affirmed.