Unraveling the Labyrinth: a Proposed Revision of the Nebraska Juvenile Code

• Publication year: 2021

82 Nebraska L. Rev. 1126. Unraveling the Labyrinth: A Proposed Revision of the Nebraska Juvenile Code

1126

*Mark Ells, Robert B. O'Neal, Victoria Weisz, and Jennifer Conner

Unraveling the Labyrinth: A Proposed Revision of the Nebraska Juvenile Code**

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128
II. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132
A. Child in Need of State Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1137
1. Current Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1137
2. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1137
3. Meaning of the Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1138
4. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1138
5. Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1139
6. National Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1139
7. International Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1140
8. Social Science Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1140
9. Public Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1141
B. Child in Need of State Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1141
1. Current Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1141
2. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1141

1127

3. Meaning of the Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1142
4. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1142
5. Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1142
6. National Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1143
7. Social Science Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1143
8. Public Policy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1143
C. Child in Need of State Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1144
1. Current Statute - Original Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . 1144
2. Proposed Change - Original Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . 1145
3. Meaning of the Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1145
4. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1146
5. Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1147
D. Child in Need of State Mental Health Treatment . . . . . . . . 1148
1. Current Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1148
2. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1148
3. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1149
4. Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1150
5. National Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1151
6. International Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1151
III. Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1152
A. Purpose Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1152
B. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1152
C. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1153
IV. Selected Substantive Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1154
A. Court-Agency Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1154
B. Speedy Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1155
C. Requirement for Children to Attend Their Abuse
and Neglect Court Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1156
1. Current Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1156
2. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1156
3. Meaning of the Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1157
4. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1157
5. Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1157
6. National Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1158
7. International Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1158
8. Psychological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1159
9. Public Policy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1160
D. Judicial Oversight of Voluntary Relinquishment of
Parental Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
1. Current Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
2. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1161
3. Meaning of the Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
4. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
5. Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
6. National Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1162
7. Psychological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163

1128

8. Public Policy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163
E. Mandatory Consultation with Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164
1. Current Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164
2. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1164
3. Meaning of the Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165
4. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1165
5. Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1166
6. National Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1167
7. Psychological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1168
8. Public Policy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1170
F. Extended Jurisdiction/Blended Sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . 1170
1. Current Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1170
2. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1170
3. Meaning of the Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1171
4. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1172
5. Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173
6. National Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173
7. Relevant Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1175
8. Practical or Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1175
V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1177
Appendix: Proposed Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1179

I. INTRODUCTION

While Nebraska child protection jurisprudence has a lengthy history, (fn1) the present Nebraska Juvenile Code(fn2) was enacted in 1981.(fn3) The first reference in Nebraska jurisprudence to a "juvenile code" was in 1982.(fn4) Since its enactment in 1981, the Juvenile Code has been amended many times.(fn5) The result is "a maze of statutory redun

1129

dancy."(fn6) This "maze" has created controversy about, inter alia, the respective authority of the courts and state agencies,(fn7) liability for costs of various services for juveniles within the jurisdiction of the code,(fn8) what constitutes a final order for purposes of appeal,(fn9) and the meaning of the word "shall."(fn10) The need for statutory clarity is reflected in this statement of the Nebraska Supreme Court:

1130

Before remanding this matter to the district court, we are compelled to make certain observations about the proceedings in the juvenile court. We remind the juvenile court and counsel that this case involves impressionable children in their formative years, not impersonal flotsam and jetsam adrift on a sea of indecision or, much worse, societal insensitivity or apathy. According to the court stenographer's certificates, the proceedings in the juvenile court consist of 80,750 words. There is one additional word which characterizes what has happened to the children in this case. However, judicial restraint precludes use of that word. As noted by the district court, the fees and costs thus far incurred in the juvenile court exceed $19,000, but that sum does not begin to approach the price being paid by the children, languishing during labyrinthine litigation in the juvenile court while they await a dispositional determination of their best interests.(fn11)

The Supreme Court clearly recognizes the need for expeditious resolution to cases brought under the Nebraska Juvenile Code, a standard frequently applied to parents: "As we have held on numerous occasions, children cannot, and should not, be suspended in foster care or be made to await uncertain parental maturity."(fn12) When parties are required to ask appellate courts to interpret and apply confusing statutory provisions, the children, who are the subjects of the litigation, will continue to languish "during labyrinthine litigation."(fn13) The Proposed Code attempts to provide a statutory framework that will prevent the kind of delays the Nebraska Supreme Court recognized in 1986 as harmful to children.(fn14)

Another impetus for the current proposed revision of the Nebraska Juvenile Code is the growing body of psychological and other social scientific research that can be used to inform laws that impact children and youth.(fn15) For example, over the past two decades, researchers have learned that many adolescents are unable to understand Miranda warnings(fn16) and have serious deficits in other capacities required for competent participation in trials.(fn17) Similarly, researchers

1131

have found that young children can be vulnerable to suggestive questioning, (fn18) that particular interviewing techniques can improve children's accuracy in recalling events,(fn19) and that multiple placements in the foster care system appear to have serious negative effects on children's well being.(fn20) Although there continues to be great need for more research and although many areas of law are governed by values rather than science, there are certain areas of juvenile law that can now benefit from rigorously gained scientific knowledge. The Proposed Code attempts to utilize the benefits of the work in the social science and psychology community whenever possible and appropriate.

The need for a revision has been recognized for some time. A committee, co-sponsored by the NSBA and the County Judges Association, worked on a revision for nearly two years. The work product of that committee provided a...