In re Interest of A.A. et al.

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court considered consolidated appeals concerning a father’s request for temporary placement of his child during juvenile proceedings and the juvenile court’s subsequent adjudication order. The court addressed parental preference, due process and notice, the effect of a parent’s disability, continuing juvenile-court jurisdiction during an appeal, and judicial disqualification. The judgment in case No. S-20-009 was reversed and remanded with directions, while the judgment in case No. S-20-244 was affirmed.

Holdings

1. The December 23, 2019, order denying Joshua's motion for temporary physical placement was a final, appealable order because it was the first adjudication of Joshua's parental right to temporary custody and affected a substantial right.
2. The juvenile court had subject matter jurisdiction over B.C. and the proceedings despite alleged irregularities in the ex parte emergency custody order, including filing and notice issues.
3. When a juvenile adjudication petition alleges fault or habits of only one parent, the State may deny the other parent's request for temporary physical custody in lieu of foster care only if it pleads and proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the other parent is unfit, has forfeited custody, or that exceptional circumstances involving serious physical or psychological harm to the child or a substantial likelihood of such harm exist.
4. Procedural due process requires reasonable notice of the factual bases on which the State seeks to prove that a nonoffending parent is unfit, has forfeited parental rights, or presents exceptional circumstances sufficient to defeat parental preference.
5. A parent's disability does not create a presumption of unfitness, forfeiture of parental rights, or exceptional circumstances involving serious harm, and does not shift the burden to the disabled parent to prove fitness.
6. The juvenile court retained continuing jurisdiction to accept the mother's plea and adjudicate B.C. while Joshua's appeal from the temporary placement order was pending.
7. The juvenile court judge was not required to disqualify himself based on questions posed during the placement hearing or the statement that the current goal was reunification with the mother.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Nebraska Supreme Court had jurisdiction over Joshua's appeal from the denial of temporary placement.
2. Whether alleged procedural irregularities in the ex parte emergency custody order deprived the juvenile court of subject matter jurisdiction.
3. Whether the parental preference doctrine required temporary placement with the nonoffending parent absent notice and proof that he was unfit, had forfeited custody, or that exceptional circumstances threatened serious harm to the child.
4. Whether the juvenile court could require a nonoffending parent to cooperate with a temporary transition or reunification plan without violating due process.
5. Whether a parent's physical disability creates a presumption of unfitness or shifts the burden to the parent to prove fitness.
6. Whether the juvenile court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate B.C. while Joshua's appeal from the temporary placement order was pending.
7. Whether the juvenile court judge was required to disqualify himself based on questioning during the placement hearing and a statement concerning reunification with the mother.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded