Cornhusker Christian Children's Home, Inc. v. Department of Social Services of State of Neb.
| Decision Date | 23 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-691,86-691 |
| Citation | 429 N.W.2d 359,229 Neb. 837 |
| Parties | CORNHUSKER CHRISTIAN CHILDREN'S HOME INC., a Nebraska Nonprofit Corporation, et al., Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES of the STATE OF NEBRASKA et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Declaratory Judgments: Appeal and Error. In an appeal from a declaratory judgment regarding questions of law, this court has an obligation to reach its conclusion independent from the conclusion reached by the trial court.
2. Statutes: Appeal and Error. In the absence of anything indicating to the contrary, statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning; this court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous.
3. Statutes: Appeal and Error. It is not within the province of this court to read a meaning into a statute which is not warranted by the legislative language; neither is it within the province of this court to read anything plain, direct, and unambiguous out of a statute.
4. Administrative Law: Minors: Words and Phrases. A sending agency within the meaning of the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-1101 (Reissue 1984), is defined to include "a person," which by logical extension would also apply to "a parent."
5. Statutes: Presumptions: Legislature: Intent. In construing a statute it is presumed that the Legislature intended a sensible rather than an absurd result.
Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and Royce N. Harper for appellants.
Steven G. Seglin, of Crosby, Guenzel, Davis, Kessner & Kuester, for appellees.
Cornhusker Christian Children's Home, Inc. (the Home), plaintiff-appellee, sought and received declaratory and injunctive relief in the district court for Lancaster County. The court declared that the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (the Compact), Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-1101 (Reissue 1984), did not apply to the placement of children with a Nebraska child-caring agency by parents residing in other Compact states, and enjoined the enforcement of the regulation against the Home. The defendant Department of Social Services (DSS) appeals from that decree.
The Home is a state-licensed 24-hour residential child-care facility in Nebraska. The Home is licensed to care for 19 children. At the time of trial, about half of the current residents had been placed by parents residing in other states which are parties to the Compact.
The Compact, followed except in New Jersey, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, was adopted in Nebraska in 1974. Since that time, the Home has received children placed by parents residing in other Compact states without regard to the Compact. However, during the Home's annual license review in November 1985, DSS informed the Home that its license would not be renewed until it complied with the Compact. DSS interpreted the Compact as requiring parents residing in Compact states outside Nebraska to notify DSS before placing their children with a state-licensed agency in Nebraska. DSS would then have the authority to approve the placement, and the State would be notified of the child's presence in the state.
In its second amended petition, the Home requested a declaration, in part, that DSS was in error in applying the terms of the Compact to the placement by a nonresident parent of a child in a licensed institution of this state; that in the event that such interpretation by DSS was proper, article II(b) of the Compact is unconstitutional as it violates the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Neb. Const. art. I, § 3, and offends the privileges and immunities clause found in U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2; and that DSS' interpretation of the Compact was arbitrary and capricious and without any rational basis, and therefore was invalid.
Although making an oblique reference to the due process clause of the 14th amendment, the trial court did not rule on that issue, and singularly held and ordered that the Compact did not apply to the placement of children by parents residing in other Compact states and enjoined DSS from enforcing that rule against the Home. Although the assignments of error interposed by DSS are four in number, they address only the holding by the district court that the provisions of the Compact do not apply to the placement of children by parents residing in other Compact states, and the entering of the injunction against DSS. Accordingly, we limit our review to the issues here presented, which eliminates any necessity of our dealing with the constitutional issues.
In an appeal from a declaratory judgment, the Supreme Court, regarding questions of law, has an obligation to reach its conclusion independent from the conclusion reached by the trial court. Cornhusker Christian Ch. Home v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 227 Neb. 94, 416 N.W.2d 551 (1987). There are no questions of fact with which we are concerned.
The Compact was created for the purpose of facilitating the placement of children in the most suitable environment available for their needs. Art. I(a). Additionally, the "purpose and policy of the party states" is:
(b) The appropriate authorities in a state where a child is to be placed may have full opportunity to ascertain the circumstances of the proposed placement, thereby promoting full compliance with applicable requirements for the protection of the child [and]
(c) The proper authorities of the state from which the placement is made may obtain the most complete information on the basis of which to evaluate a projected placement before it is made.
The Compact then provides conditions for such placements. Art. III. It is the applicability of these conditions which is at issue. The Compact provides in part:
(a) No sending agency shall send ... into any other party state any child for placement ... unless the sending agency shall comply with each and every requirement set forth in this article....
(b) Prior to [such placement], the sending agency shall furnish the appropriate public authorities in the receiving state written notice of the intention to send, bring, or place the child in the receiving state....
....
(d) The child shall not be sent ... into the receiving state until the appropriate public authorities in the receiving state shall notify the sending agency, in writing, to the effect that the proposed placement does not appear to be contrary to the interest of the child.
(Emphasis supplied.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adoption No. 10087 in Circuit Court for Montgomery County, In re
...This conclusion follows from the inclusion of the word "person" in the statute. As recognized in Cornhusker Chr. Ch. Home v. Dept. of Soc. S., 229 Neb. 837, 429 N.W.2d 359, 362 (1988): "There is nothing within the compact to indicate that, for the purposes of this statute, parents are not p......
-
Ashby v. State
...v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). 23 § 43-1101, art. II(b). 24 Cornhusker Christian Ch. Home v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 229 Neb. 837, 429 N.W.2d 359 (1988). 25 Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 43-104.13 and 43-104.14 (Reissue 2004). 26 Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-104.12 (Reissue 2004). 2......
-
Commerce Sav. Scottsbluff, Inc. v. F.H. Schafer Elevator, Inc.
...it is presumed that the Legislature intended a sensible rather than an absurd result." Cornhusker Christian Ch. Home v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 229 Neb. 837, 841-42, 429 N.W.2d 359,362 (1988). An analysis of chapter 52, article 11, indicates that the Legislature created § 52-1101 (Reissue 198......
-
State v. Wilcox, 88-570
...to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. Cornhusker Christian Ch. Home v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 229 Neb. 837, 429 N.W.2d 359 (1988); Dieter v. State, 228 Neb. 368, 422 N.W.2d 560 (1988); Lawson v. Ford Motor Co., 225 Neb. 725, 408 N.W.2d 256 The ......