Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed appeals arising from juvenile proceedings involving Michael N. The court dismissed the Douglas County Attorney’s Office’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order appointing a special prosecutor did not affect a substantial right. It held that the parents waived challenges to service and detention by making general appearances in seeking recusal, and it rejected their judicial-recusal arguments.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Nebraska Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the juvenile court’s order removing the Douglas County Attorney’s Office and appointing a special prosecutor.
- Whether the juvenile court’s detention order continuing Michael in the Department’s custody was a final, appealable order.
- Whether the parents’ motions to dismiss based on insufficient service and notice were properly denied after the parents made general appearances by seeking recusal.
- Whether the parents’ due process rights were violated by the detention proceedings and the allegedly delayed or deficient service and notice.
- Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying the parents’ motions to recuse.
Holdings
- The order removing the Douglas County Attorney’s Office and appointing a special prosecutor did not affect a substantial right and was not a final, appealable order; the appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- A detention order entered after a hearing and continuing a juvenile’s custody away from a parent pending adjudication is a final, appealable order.
- Although the denial of the motions to dismiss was not independently appealable, it was reviewable because it bore on the correctness of the appealable detention order.
- The parents waived their objections to service and notice by making general appearances through motions to recuse and arguments seeking the juvenile court’s exercise of discretion on matters other than personal jurisdiction, process, or service.
- The parents’ due process challenges to the detention proceedings failed because they waived service of process, their counsel participated in scheduling and appearing at the detention hearing, and notice to counsel is generally notice to the client.
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01 did not require the juvenile court to advise the parents of their right to counsel because the parents themselves were not present in court; appearance by counsel alone did not trigger the statute.
- The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motions to recuse because the judge’s challenged rulings and comments did not establish actual bias or create an objectively reasonable appearance of impropriety.
Key quotations
“Because the order effectively replacing the County Attorney’s Office with the special prosecutor did not affect the subject matter of the litigation, we cannot say it affected a substantial right of the State.” (666)
“A party will be deemed to have appeared generally if, by motion or other form of application to the court, he or she seeks to bring its powers into action on any matter other than the question of jurisdiction over that party.” (668)
“But judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion directed to a trial judge.” (673)
Factual background
Michael N., born in December 2011, has trisomy 8 and requires a special feeding regimen. In July 2016, he arrived at an Omaha hospital extremely malnourished after traveling and living with his parents, siblings, and two dogs in a furnished semitrailer truck cab. The State filed successive juvenile petitions alleging that the parents failed to provide proper care, supervision, and stable housing and seeking adjudication and termination of parental rights. Michael was placed in the temporary custody of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, while the parents challenged service, detention, and the juvenile judge’s impartiality.
Procedural history
The separate juvenile court dismissed an earlier juvenile case without prejudice and the State filed successive petitions seeking adjudication of Michael and termination of parental rights. After the Court of Appeals reversed an earlier detention order for lack of notice, the State dismissed and refiled the matter under a new case number. The parents moved to dismiss for insufficient service and moved to recuse the judge. The juvenile court denied recusal, removed the Douglas County Attorney’s Office, appointed a special prosecutor, denied the motions to dismiss, and entered a detention order continuing Michael in the Department’s custody. The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the County Attorney’s Office appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the orders challenged by the parents.