custody inquiry in Nebraska

2009Like the majority and the preceding separate dissent, I have considered the custody inquiry under the six factors listed in U.S. v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2002), which we applied in State v. Mata, 266 Neb. 668 , 668 N.W.2d 448 (2003), and State v. McKinney, 273 Neb. 346 , 730 N.W.2d 74 (2007).

2009We also cited State v. Mata, supra , in which we found helpful the assessment of six common indicia outlined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in U.S. v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2002).

2025DEMERS Cite as 33 Neb.

2025PORTER Cite as 33 Neb.

2023Previously, in State v. Rogers, 56 we noted the “large body of case law . . . developed since Miranda” which has made apparent “certain circumstances that are most relevant to the custody inquiry.” Those circumstances include: (1) the loca- tion of the interrogation and whether it was a place where the defendant would normally feel free to leave; (2) whether the contact with the police was initiated by them or by the person interrogated, and, if by the police, whether the 51 Id. 52 Id., 501 U.S. at 436 . 53 Id. 54 Id. 55 Id. 56 State v. Rogers, 277 Neb. 37, 57 , 760 N.W.2d 35, 54 (2009). - 186

2023Previously, in State v. Rogers, 56 we noted the “large body of case law . . . developed since Miranda” which has made apparent “certain circumstances that are most relevant to the custody inquiry.” Those circumstances include: (1) the loca- tion of the interrogation and whether it was a place where the defendant would normally feel free to leave; (2) whether the contact with the police was initiated by them or by the person interrogated, and, if by the police, whether the 51 Id. 52 Id., 501 U.S. at 436 . 53 Id. 54 Id. 55 Id. 56 State v. Rogers, 277 Neb. 37, 57 , 760 N.W.2d 35, 54 (2009). - 186

2023VAUGHN Cite as 314 Neb. 167 defendant voluntarily agreed to the interview; (3) whether the defendant was told he or she was free to terminate the inter- view and leave at any time; (4) whether there were restrictions on the defendant’s freedom of movement during the interroga- tion; (5) whether neutral parties were present at any time dur- ing the interrogation; (6) the duration of the interrogation; (7) whether the police verbally dominated the questioning, were aggressive, were confrontational, were accusatory, threatened the defendant, or used other interrogation techniques to pres- sure th

2021He points out that the court’s order “goes into great detail” on each of the removal factors and that “[s]uch an analysis goes hand in hand with an analysis for modification of custody.” Id. - 415 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 29 Nebraska Appellate Reports BURTON v. SCHLEGEL Cite as 29 Neb.

2015Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Erpelding intentionally failed, refused, or neglected to pay the child support for the months of August, September, October, and November 2012. (b) Nonsupport to His Minor Child [11] We quickly dispose of Erpelding’s meritless argument that his nonsupport was really to DHHS and not to his minor 16 See, State v. Bright, supra note 13 ; State v. Eichelberger, supra note 13 . 17 See In re Interest of Gabriella H., 289 Neb. 323 , 855 N.W.2d 368 (2014)

2015Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Erpelding intentionally failed, refused, or neglected to pay the child support for the months of August, September, October, and November 2012. (b) Nonsupport to His Minor Child [11] We quickly dispose of Erpelding’s meritless argument that his nonsupport was really to DHHS and not to his minor 16 See, State v. Bright, supra note 13 ; State v. Eichelberger, supra note 13 . 17 See In re Interest of Gabriella H., 289 Neb. 323 , 855 N.W.2d 368 (2014)

2009Id.

2009Like the majority and the preceding separate dissent, I have considered the custody inquiry under the six factors listed in U.S. v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2002), which we applied in State v. Mata, 266 Neb. 668 , 668 N.W.2d 448 (2003), and State v. McKinney, 273 Neb. 346 , 730 N.W.2d 74 (2007).

2009Like the majority and the preceding separate dissent, I have considered the custody inquiry under the six factors listed in U.S. v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2002), which we applied in State v. Mata, 266 Neb. 668 , 668 N.W.2d 448 (2003), and State v. McKinney, 273 Neb. 346 , 730 N.W.2d 74 (2007).

2009Like the majority and the preceding separate dissent, I have considered the custody inquiry under the six factors listed in U.S. v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2002), which we applied in State v. Mata, 266 Neb. 668 , 668 N.W.2d 448 (2003), and State v. McKinney, 273 Neb. 346 , 730 N.W.2d 74 (2007).

2009Like the majority and the preceding separate dissent, I have considered the custody inquiry under the six factors listed in U.S. v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2002), which we applied in State v. Mata, 266 Neb. 668 , 668 N.W.2d 448 (2003), and State v. McKinney, 273 Neb. 346 , 730 N.W.2d 74 (2007).

2004Id.

2002Elizabeth argues that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over the children, citing In re Interest of Kelly D., 3 Neb.

1979Kockrow v. Kockrow, 191 Neb. 657 , 217 N. W. 2d 89 ; Bauer v. Bauer, 184 Neb. 777 , 172 N. W. 2d 231 .

1979Kockrow v. Kockrow, 191 Neb. 657 , 217 N. W. 2d 89 ; Bauer v. Bauer, 184 Neb. 777 , 172 N. W. 2d 231 .

1979Kockrow v. Kockrow, 191 Neb. 657 , 217 N. W. 2d 89 ; Bauer v. Bauer, 184 Neb. 777 , 172 N. W. 2d 231 .

1979Kockrow v. Kockrow, 191 Neb. 657 , 217 N. W. 2d 89 ; Bauer v. Bauer, 184 Neb. 777 , 172 N. W. 2d 231 .