(1) In all school districts in this state, any superintendent, principal, teacher, or member of the school board who knows of any violation of subsection (2) of section 79-201 shall within three days report such violation to the attendance officer of the school, who shall immediately investigate the case. When of his or her personal knowledge or by report or complaint from any resident of the district, the attendance officer believes that there is a violation of subsection (2) of section 79-201, the attendance officer shall immediately investigate such alleged violation.
(2) All school boards shall have a written policy on attendance developed and annually reviewed in collaboration with the county attorney of the county in which the principal office of the school district is located. The policy shall include a provision indicating how the school district will handle cases in which excessive absences are due to illness. The policy shall also state the circumstances and number of absences or the hourly equivalent upon which the school shall render all services to address barriers to attendance. Such services shall be provided upon twenty days of absence, and shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) Written communication by school officials with the person or persons who have legal or actual charge or control of any child; and
(b) One or more meetings between, at a minimum, a school attendance officer, a school social worker, or a school administrator or his or her designee, the person who has legal or actual charge or control of the child, the person who is responsible for making educational decisions on behalf of the child if that person is someone other than the person who has legal or actual charge or control of the child, and the child, when appropriate, to address the barriers to attendance. The result of the meeting or meetings shall be to develop a collaborative plan to reduce barriers identified to improve regular attendance. The plan shall include, if agreed to by the person who is responsible for making educational decisions on behalf of the child, an educational evaluation to determine whether any intellectual, academic, physical, or social-emotional barriers are contributing factors to the lack of attendance. The plan shall also consider, but not be limited to:
(i) The physical, mental, or behavioral health of the child;
(ii) Educational counseling;
(iii) Referral to community agencies for economic services;
(iv) Family or individual counseling;
(v) Assisting the family in working with other community services; and
(vi) Referral to restorative justice practices or services.
(3)(a) The school may report to the county attorney of the county in which the person resides when the school has documented the efforts it has made as required by subsection (2) of this section that the collaborative plan to reduce barriers identified to improve regular attendance has not been successful and that the child has accrued twenty days or more of unexcused absences during the school year. Absences shall be excused by a parent, guardian, or educational decision maker, as defined in section 79-530, of the child for physical or mental illness and as documented by a credentialed health professional, provided the documentation supports such absence. In the instance of chronic illness, documentation shall be reviewed each semester.
(b) The school shall notify the child's family in writing prior to referring the child to the county attorney. Failure by the school to document the efforts required by subsection (2) of this section is a defense to prosecution under section 79-201 and to adjudication under subdivision (3)(a) or (3)(b) of section 43-247 based upon such absences. Illness that makes attendance impossible or impracticable shall not be the basis for referral to the county attorney.
(4) Nothing in this section shall preclude a county attorney from being involved at any stage in the process to address excessive absenteeism.
Notes of Decisions
In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 25× “BACKGROUND On April 12, 2018, the State filed a petition alleging that Reality, then age 15, was habitually truant from school between September 1, 2017, and March 7, 2018.”
In re Interest of Cole J., 26 Neb. Ct. App. 951 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 7× “Thus, the court held the school's efforts satisfied the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-209 (Reissue 2014) and adjudicated Cole as a juvenile within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(b).”
Kerford Limestone Co. v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 287 Neb. 653 (Neb. 2014).
· cites it 2× “We reject her argument that the State was first required to show that her school provided the services contemplated by § 79-209(2), and we hold that § 79-209 does not impose any preconditions upon the juvenile court’s exclu- sive and original jurisdiction under § 43-247(3)(b).”
In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 25× “”1 Reality argues that she has defenses to adjudication under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 79-209 (2)(b) (Reissue 2014) and 43-276(2) (Reissue 2016).”
In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 25× “”1 Reality argues that she has defenses to adjudication under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 79-209 (2)(b) (Reissue 2014) and 43-276(2) (Reissue 2016).”
In re Interest of Mia T. (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 18× “On appeal, she contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt she had missed more than 20 days of school and that the school properly provided and documented the remedial measures specifically outlined in Neb. Rev. Stat. §…”
In re Interest of Laticia S. (Neb. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 7× “The school’s duty to provide services in an attempt to address excessive absentee- ism comes from Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-209 (Supp. 2011), relating to compulsory attendance and the possibility of a parent’s being subjected to a criminal sanction.”
In re Interest of Carlos G. (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Schlachter testified the school complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-209 (Reissue 2014) in that it documented verbal and written communications to Celia concerning Carlos’ attendance, as well as documenting a September 6, 2018, meeting with Celia and Carlos and a social worker.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-209(2) — 7 cases
In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878 (Neb. 2019).
“BACKGROUND On April 12, 2018, the State filed a petition alleging that Reality, then age 15, was habitually truant from school between September 1, 2017, and March 7, 2018.”
In re Interest of Cole J., 26 Neb. Ct. App. 951 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
“Thus, the court held the school's efforts satisfied the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-209 (Reissue 2014) and adjudicated Cole as a juvenile within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(b).”
Kerford Limestone Co. v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 287 Neb. 653 (Neb. 2014).
“We reject her argument that the State was first required to show that her school provided the services contemplated by § 79-209(2), and we hold that § 79-209 does not impose any preconditions upon the juvenile court’s exclu- sive and original jurisdiction under § 43-247(3)(b).”
In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878 (Neb. 2019).
“”1 Reality argues that she has defenses to adjudication under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 79-209 (2)(b) (Reissue 2014) and 43-276(2) (Reissue 2016).”
In re Interest of Mia T. (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
“On appeal, she contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt she had missed more than 20 days of school and that the school properly provided and documented the remedial measures specifically outlined in Neb. Rev. Stat. §…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-209(2)(b) — 4 cases
In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878 (Neb. 2019).
“BACKGROUND On April 12, 2018, the State filed a petition alleging that Reality, then age 15, was habitually truant from school between September 1, 2017, and March 7, 2018.”
In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878 (Neb. 2019).
“”1 Reality argues that she has defenses to adjudication under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 79-209 (2)(b) (Reissue 2014) and 43-276(2) (Reissue 2016).”
In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878 (Neb. 2019).
“”1 Reality argues that she has defenses to adjudication under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 79-209 (2)(b) (Reissue 2014) and 43-276(2) (Reissue 2016).”
In re Interest of Mia T. (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
“On appeal, she contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt she had missed more than 20 days of school and that the school properly provided and documented the remedial measures specifically outlined in Neb. Rev. Stat. §…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-209(3) — 6 cases
In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878 (Neb. 2019).
“BACKGROUND On April 12, 2018, the State filed a petition alleging that Reality, then age 15, was habitually truant from school between September 1, 2017, and March 7, 2018.”
In re Interest of Cole J., 26 Neb. Ct. App. 951 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
“Thus, the court held the school's efforts satisfied the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-209 (Reissue 2014) and adjudicated Cole as a juvenile within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(b).”
In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878 (Neb. 2019).
“”1 Reality argues that she has defenses to adjudication under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 79-209 (2)(b) (Reissue 2014) and 43-276(2) (Reissue 2016).”
In re Interest of Mia T. (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
“On appeal, she contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt she had missed more than 20 days of school and that the school properly provided and documented the remedial measures specifically outlined in Neb. Rev. Stat. §…”
In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878 (Neb. 2019).
“”1 Reality argues that she has defenses to adjudication under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 79-209 (2)(b) (Reissue 2014) and 43-276(2) (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-209(4) — 1 case
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.