(1) When the petition alleges the juvenile to be within the provisions of subdivision (3)(a) of section 43-247 or when termination of parental rights is sought pursuant to subdivision (6) of section 43-247 and the parent, custodian, or guardian appears with or without counsel, the court shall inform the parties of the:
(a) Nature of the proceedings and the possible consequences or dispositions pursuant to sections 43-284, 43-285, and 43-288 to 43-295;
(b) Right of the parent to engage counsel of his or her choice at his or her own expense or to have counsel appointed if the parent is unable to afford to hire a lawyer;
(c) Right of a stepparent, custodian, or guardian to engage counsel of his or her choice and, if there are allegations against the stepparent, custodian, or guardian or when the petition is amended to include such allegations, to have counsel appointed if the stepparent, custodian, or guardian is unable to afford to hire a lawyer;
(d) Right to remain silent as to any matter of inquiry if the testimony sought to be elicited might tend to prove the party guilty of any crime;
(e) Right to confront and cross-examine witnesses;
(f) Right to testify and to compel other witnesses to attend and testify;
(g) Right to a speedy adjudication hearing; and
(h) Right to appeal and have a transcript or record of the proceedings for such purpose.
(2) The court shall have the discretion as to whether or not to appoint counsel for a person who is not a party to the proceeding. If counsel is appointed, failure of the party to maintain contact with his or her court-appointed counsel or to keep such counsel advised of the party's current address may result in the counsel being discharged by the court.
(3) After giving the parties the information prescribed in subsection (1) of this section, the court may accept an in-court admission, an answer of no contest, or a denial from any parent, custodian, or guardian as to all or any part of the allegations in the petition. The court shall ascertain a factual basis for an admission or an answer of no contest.
(4) In the case of a denial, the court shall allow a reasonable time for preparation if needed and then proceed to determine the question of whether the juvenile falls under the provisions of section 43-247 as alleged. After hearing the evidence, the court shall make a finding and adjudication to be entered on the records of the court as to whether the allegations in the petition have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence in cases under subdivision (3)(a) of section 43-247 or by clear and convincing evidence in proceedings to terminate parental rights. The court shall inquire as to whether any party believes an Indian child is involved in the proceedings prior to the advisement of rights pursuant to subsection (1) of this section. If an Indian child is involved, the standard of proof shall be in compliance with the Nebraska Indian Child Welfare Act, if applicable.
(5) If the court shall find that the allegations of the petition or motion have not been proven by the requisite standard of proof, it shall dismiss the case or motion. If the court sustains the petition or motion, it shall allow a reasonable time for preparation if needed and then proceed to inquire into the matter of the proper disposition to be made of the juvenile.
Notes of Decisions
In Re Interest of Phoenix L., 708 N.W.2d 786 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 20× “In both cases, Sonya, a mother of non-Indian children, argues that the clear and convincing standard of proof required to terminate parental rights set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01 (3) (Reissue 2004), to which she is subject, violates equal protection, because the…”
State v. Heather N. (In Re Michael N.), 302 Neb. 652 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 8× “They point out that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01 (Reissue 2016) confers the right of a parent to have counsel appointed if the parent is unable to afford to hire a lawyer.”
State v. Lloyd T., 721 N.W.2d 676 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 14× “in finding that it had continuing subject matter jurisdiction in this case, and (2) even if the court did have jurisdiction, it committed several errors in the adjudication of the supplemental petition, including (a) denying Lloyd’s motion to dismiss based upon an alleged…”
In re Interest of Isabel P., 875 N.W.2d 848 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 4× “The State indicated that it was under the impression that Charles was not very involved in K.J.’s life and suggested that a supplemental petition might be filed to include allegations against Charles.”
In Re Interest of Mainor T., 674 N.W.2d 442 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 6× “to where the hearing was being conducted, the court proceeded with the hearing without Mercedes’ presence and did not otherwise afford Mercedes due process; (2) there is nothing in the record to support a finding that Mercedes’ failure to appear at the adjudication hearing was…”
In re Interest of Brooklyn T. & Charlotte T., 26 Neb. Ct. App. 669 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “According to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01 (3) (Reissue 2016), when termination of parental rights is sought, a court may accept an in-court admission as to all or part of the alle- gations in the petition.”
In Re Interest of Clifford M., 626 N.W.2d 549 (Neb. 2001).
· cites it 5× “Notice to parents in juvenile proceedings to terminate parental rights is governed by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01 *879 (Reissue 1998), which was not changed by the 1998 amendments to the juvenile code.”
In re Interest of Zanaya W., 291 Neb. 20 (Neb. 2015).
· cites it 5× “The factual bases to support the allegation that Reon had substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected the children or refused to give them necessary parental care and protection was that Reon was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and that on…”
In Re Interest of Ty M., 655 N.W.2d 672 (Neb. 2003).
· cites it 3× “He also claims that there was no adequate advisement of rights made by the juvenile court prior to the adjudication, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01 (Reissue 1998).”
In re Interest of Vladimir G., 306 Neb. 127 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 7× “The court referred to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01 (Reissue 2016), which provides in relevant part: (1) When the petition alleges the juvenile to be within the provisions of subdivision (3)(a) of section 43-247 or when termination of parental rights is sought pursuant to…”
In Re Interest of NM, 484 N.W.2d 77 (Neb. 1992).
· cites it 6× “We do not base our decision in this case on the grounds that the record does not show full compliance with § 43-279.01, because the point is not raised by the parents in this case, and possibly, appropriate information was furnished to the parties at the detention hearing, which…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01(1) — 11 cases
State v. Lloyd T., 721 N.W.2d 676 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006).
“in finding that it had continuing subject matter jurisdiction in this case, and (2) even if the court did have jurisdiction, it committed several errors in the adjudication of the supplemental petition, including (a) denying Lloyd’s motion to dismiss based upon an alleged…”
In Re Interest of NM, 484 N.W.2d 77 (Neb. 1992).
“We do not base our decision in this case on the grounds that the record does not show full compliance with § 43-279.01, because the point is not raised by the parents in this case, and possibly, appropriate information was furnished to the parties at the detention hearing, which…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01(1)(a) — 1 case
In Re Interest of NM, 484 N.W.2d 77 (Neb. 1992).
“We do not base our decision in this case on the grounds that the record does not show full compliance with § 43-279.01, because the point is not raised by the parents in this case, and possibly, appropriate information was furnished to the parties at the detention hearing, which…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01(1)(b) — 3 cases
In Re Interest of NM, 484 N.W.2d 77 (Neb. 1992).
“We do not base our decision in this case on the grounds that the record does not show full compliance with § 43-279.01, because the point is not raised by the parents in this case, and possibly, appropriate information was furnished to the parties at the detention hearing, which…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01(1)(d) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01(1)(f) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01(2) — 5 cases
In Re Interest of NM, 484 N.W.2d 77 (Neb. 1992).
“We do not base our decision in this case on the grounds that the record does not show full compliance with § 43-279.01, because the point is not raised by the parents in this case, and possibly, appropriate information was furnished to the parties at the detention hearing, which…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01(3) — 25 cases
In Re Interest of Phoenix L., 708 N.W.2d 786 (Neb. 2006).
“In both cases, Sonya, a mother of non-Indian children, argues that the clear and convincing standard of proof required to terminate parental rights set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01 (3) (Reissue 2004), to which she is subject, violates equal protection, because the…”
In re Interest of Brooklyn T. & Charlotte T., 26 Neb. Ct. App. 669 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
“According to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01 (3) (Reissue 2016), when termination of parental rights is sought, a court may accept an in-court admission as to all or part of the alle- gations in the petition.”
In re Interest of Zanaya W., 291 Neb. 20 (Neb. 2015).
“The factual bases to support the allegation that Reon had substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected the children or refused to give them necessary parental care and protection was that Reon was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and that on…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01(l)(a) — 3 cases
In Re Interest of Clifford M., 626 N.W.2d 549 (Neb. 2001).
“Notice to parents in juvenile proceedings to terminate parental rights is governed by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01 *879 (Reissue 1998), which was not changed by the 1998 amendments to the juvenile code.”
In Re Interest of Mainor T., 674 N.W.2d 442 (Neb. 2004).
“to where the hearing was being conducted, the court proceeded with the hearing without Mercedes’ presence and did not otherwise afford Mercedes due process; (2) there is nothing in the record to support a finding that Mercedes’ failure to appear at the adjudication hearing was…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01(l)(b) — 1 case
In Re Interest of Mainor T., 674 N.W.2d 442 (Neb. 2004).
“to where the hearing was being conducted, the court proceeded with the hearing without Mercedes’ presence and did not otherwise afford Mercedes due process; (2) there is nothing in the record to support a finding that Mercedes’ failure to appear at the adjudication hearing was…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01(l)(d) — 2 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-279.01(l)(e) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.