Theodore L. Carlson

This case involved the termination of Jose O.'s parental rights to his two U.S. citizen children, Antonio and Gisela, in Nebraska juvenile court proceedings initiated due to domestic violence between Jose and the children's mother, as well as the children's out-of-home placement. Jose, a Mexican national, appealed the termination order, arguing that the state's failure to notify the Mexican consulate under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations violated his due process rights. The court affirmed the termination, holding that the lack of consular notification did not deprive Jose of due process because he received notice through counsel, participated in proceedings, and suffered no actual prejudice. The decision also rested on the statutory ground that the children had been in out-of-home placement for more than 15 of the prior 22 months and that termination served their best interests given the history of domestic violence and minimal contact.

family lawcivil rightsimmigrationprocedure

This case involved a juvenile, Sylvester L., who had previously been committed to the Youth Rehabilitation Treatment Center (YRTC) and was on parole when the county attorney filed a motion for new disposition citing new behavioral incidents like disturbing the peace and school aggression. Without filing new petitions or charges under the juvenile code, the juvenile court granted the motion and recommitted Sylvester to YRTC. The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed and vacated that order, concluding that only the Office of Juvenile Services (OJS) within the Department of Health and Human Services holds statutory authority to revoke parole for juveniles committed to YRTC under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-404 and 43-416. The court explained that using a motion for new disposition effectively bypassed OJS's parole revocation process and the procedural rights afforded to the juvenile under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-419 to 43-423.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

In Rousseau v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Omaha, a neighboring property owner challenged the Omaha Zoning Board of Appeals' grant of three variances to a developer seeking to construct a four-unit condominium on a vacant urban lot, including reductions in front and side yard setbacks and the number of required off-street parking spaces. The district court upheld the board's decision after a bench trial, finding that the front-yard variance was unnecessary or minimal and that the neighborhood's high density created sufficient hardship to justify the side-yard and parking variances. On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that competent evidence supported the district court's conclusion that the existing development density justified the variances under the applicable standard and that the board's action was neither arbitrary nor unsupported by evidence. The court emphasized that zoning boards have discretion to address conflicts between strict zoning rules and pre-existing urban conditions without judicial substitution of judgment.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved the termination of police officer Christopher Parent's employment by the City of Bellevue for allegedly violating a departmental policy on physical, mental, and emotional health due to difficulty during firearms training caused by his weight. The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the district court's remand to the Civil Service Commission, which had treated deadlines in the collective bargaining agreement as jurisdictional requirements for the investigation and disciplinary action. On the merits, the court held that the policy contained only one mandatory provision (requiring officers to meet a "fair" level of fitness under the wellness program manual), which Parent satisfied through accumulated activity points, while the other paragraph was merely directory. The court therefore reversed the Commission's decision upholding the termination and remanded with directions to reverse it.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the State of Nebraska seeking to adjudicate three minor children as juveniles under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) due to allegations of medical neglect, domestic violence, and substance abuse by their father, David H., and to place them in out-of-home foster care. The children were eligible for enrollment with the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, triggering requirements under the Nebraska Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The juvenile court adjudicated the children and ordered continued out-of-home placement, relying on testimony from a Department caseworker. The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the caseworker was not a qualified expert witness under ICWA because the record did not establish her substantial experience with Indian child and family services or knowledge of tribal child-rearing standards, which is required for foster care placement decisions. The court noted that ICWA expert testimony is not needed for the initial adjudication under state law but is mandatory for the placement order.

family lawcivil rights

The case involved David Goodwin, proceeding pro se, who filed a complaint seeking damages for injuries his minor son Desmond sustained in a car accident with defendant Mathias M. Hobza, along with related medical expenses. At trial, Goodwin offered only medical bills as evidence, which the court excluded due to lack of foundation; he then rested, prompting the court to grant Hobza's motion for directed verdict and dismiss the case. On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that no admissible evidence supported the claim and that a nonattorney parent cannot litigate a minor child's negligence action, rendering any such appeal a nullity.

torts & liabilityprocedurefamily law