In re Interest of Prince R.

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a juvenile court adjudication finding that Prince R. lacked proper parental care under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a). The court held that the parents’ decision to remove Prince from Nebraska and discontinue medically necessary cancer treatment established a lack of proper parental care and a definite risk of future harm. The State was required to prove the adjudication allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Holdings

1. To obtain jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a), the State must prove the petition's allegations by a preponderance of the evidence, and the appellate court reviews the juvenile adjudication de novo on the record.
2. A juvenile lacks proper parental care under § 43-247(3)(a) when the child is not receiving necessary care and that condition results from the fault or habits of a parent, guardian, or custodian; the State need not prove actual physical harm but must establish a definite risk of future harm without intervention.
3. The evidence established that Abak deprived Prince of proper parental care by removing him from Nebraska and stopping his medically necessary treatment indefinitely, thereby creating a definite risk of future harm.
4. The State proved that Mohamed supported and bore responsibility for removing Prince from treatment indefinitely, so the adjudication was proper as to Mohamed as well as Abak.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Prince lacked proper parental care by reason of the faults or habits of Mohamed and Abak under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a).
2. Whether the State was required to prove that Prince actually suffered physical harm, rather than a definite risk of future harm, to establish juvenile-court jurisdiction.
3. Whether the evidence established that Mohamed was personally responsible for the lack of proper parental care, rather than responsibility resting exclusively with Abak.

Disposition

affirmed