State v. Mia T. (In re Interest of Mia T.), A-18-1009.
| Decision Date | 25 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. A-18-1009.,A-18-1009. |
| Parties | IN RE INTEREST OF MIA T., A CHILD UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, v. MIA T., APPELLANT. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
(Memorandum Web Opinion)
Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County: MATTHEW R. KAHLER, Judge. Affirmed.
Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, and Leigh A. Ellis for appellant.
Donald W. Kleine, Douglas County Attorney, Sarah Graham, and David Ceraso, Senior Certified Law Student, for appellee.
Mia T. appeals from the Douglas County Separate Juvenile Court's order adjudicating her as a juvenile for being habitually truant from school. 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. § 79-209 (Reissue 2014) prior to referring the case to the county attorney. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
In June 2018, the State filed a truancy petition alleging that Mia was a juvenile within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(b) (Reissue 2016) for being habitually truant from school. Specifically, the State alleged that Mia had missed over 20 days of school in the previous school year. Mia, born in January 2001, was 17 years old when the action commenced. She lived with her mother, Corinna Hagberg, in Omaha, Nebraska, and attended high school at South High Magnet School (Magnet). An adjudication hearing was held in September 2018. The State presented testimony through two witnesses: Lori Kuhns, who served as Magnet's School Support Liaison during the relevant timeframe; and Kori Moran, a Community and Educational Liaison at the Douglas County Juvenile Assessment Center.
Kuhns testified that, during the 2017-18 school year, she was responsible for monitoring students' attendance. According to Kuhns, the Omaha Public School system utilizes "Infinite Campus" as its computerized system for tracking and recording attendance. She stated that student's classroom teachers regularly make attendance entries into the system at the beginning of each class period and the school's attendance secretary makes attendance entries into the system when parents call regarding student absences or when students arrive late or leave school early. Kuhns noted that Magnet's attendance policy is consistent with the Omaha Public Schools' attendance policy, that is, Magnet ordinarily sends notification letters to parents each time a student misses 5, 10, or 15 days of school. After a student misses 10 days of school, Magnet attempts to schedule a collaborative plan meeting with the student and the student's parents. After a student misses 15 days of school, the school sets a mandatory collaborative plan meeting with the student and the student's parent. When a student misses 20 days of school, the school sends a referral form to the Douglas County Attorney's Office in order to place the county attorney on notice of the student's habitual truancy. When the State filed the truancy petition in this case, Mia had missed over 24 days from school from August 17, 2017, to May 3, 2018, which absences were all unexcused. Mia's absences were a combination of both full-day and partial-day absences.
Kuhns testified that, when Mia missed her 5-day, 10-day, and 15-day absence milestones, the school sent absence notification letters to Hagberg in accordance with the attendance policy as outlined above. Kuhns testified that the letters were returned as undeliverable and the school never received proof of a changed mailing address from Hagberg. Kuhns specifically testified that maintaining an updated address with the school is the parent's responsibility. She testified that at or about the time the school sent the 10-day letter to Hagberg, the school provided a separate written letter to Mia for her to deliver to Hagberg which letter formally requested Hagberg's proof of address. After Mia accumulated 15 absences, Kuhns sent a letter which provided a specific time for a meeting to create a collaborative attendance improvement plan. School employees eventually held a collaborative plan meeting but neither Mia nor Hagberg were present. Following Mia and Hagberg's failure to attend the scheduled meeting, Kuhns sent an email to Hagberg. Kuhns testified that Hagberg failed to respond to any forms of communication from Magnet. After Mia reached 20 unexcused absences, Kuhns sent Hagberg a letter stating that she would be preparing a county attorney referral form. On or about May 4, 2018, Kuhns prepared and sent the referralform to the Douglas County Attorney's Office, along with a printout of Mia's "Exact Daily Attendance Detail." Both documents were admitted into evidence at the adjudication hearing.
While cross-examining Kuhns, Mia's counsel attempted to impeach the reliability of the attendance records. In response to Mia's counsel, Kuhns testified that each time Mia was late to school, late to a class, or left class early, she was marked absent for a partial day. Kuhn acknowledged that within the comment section of the document entitled Mia's "Exact Daily Attendance Detail," the attendance secretary made notes documenting the reasons for Mia's partial attendance, such as noting late arrival times, but the calculated partial-day absences did not always match other calculated partial-day absences with similar entries. Nevertheless, Kuhns testified that she found the system that recorded absences and calculated the total number of absences to be trustworthy and she had no doubt as to its reliability.
Moran testified that, in connection with her job responsibilities as Community and Educational Liaison at the Douglas County Juvenile Assessment Center, she works with the county attorney and reviews truancy referrals to determine if truant juveniles are eligible for diversion. When a juvenile is eligible, Moran helps to set up diversion services. When provided with Mia's truancy referral form, Moran determined that Mia was not eligible for diversion due to her prior failure to complete truancy diversion and because she had recently ended probation for truancy.
Following the trial, the juvenile court found that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mia had missed over 20 days of school and was habitually truant within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(b). Mia timely appeals.
Mia contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she had missed more than 20 days of school and that the school had provided and documented the required remedial measures outlined in § 79-209 prior to referring the case to the county attorney.
An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independently of the juvenile court's findings. In re Interest of Kane L. & Carter L., 299 Neb. 834, 910 N.W.2d 789 (2018). When the evidence is in conflict, however, an appellate court may give weight to the fact that the lower court observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts over the other. Id.
The meaning of a statute is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court. In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878, 925 N.W.2d 355 (2019).
Mia contends that the State failed to meet its burden of proof in two ways. She first argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish Mia missed more than 20 days of school and was habitually truant. Specifically, Mia claims that the inconsistencies in the calculation of missed partial days in the document entitled "Exact Daily Attendance Detail" attached to the County Attorney Referral Form demonstrate that the attendance record is unreliable. Second, she claimsthat Magnet failed to document and provide Mia and Hagberg with the required remedial measures outlined in § 79-209(2).
The juvenile court has jurisdiction over any juvenile "who is habitually truant from home or school." § 43-247(3)(b). At the adjudication stage, in order for a juvenile court to assume jurisdiction of a minor under § 43-247(3)(b), the State must prove the allegations of the petition beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Interest of Cole J., 26 Neb. App. 951, 925 N.W.2d 365 (2019).
According to Kuhns, and as documented in Mia's County Attorney Referral Form and "Exact Daily Attendance Detail," Mia missed over 24 unexcused days of school from August 17, 2017, to May 3, 2018. Kuhns testified that she had no doubt about the reliability of the attendance log. Mia did not provide any direct evidence that she missed less than 20 days of school. Instead, she attempts to rely on a few entries in her "Exact Daily Attendance Detail" which show small calculated portions of absences from different days which appear to have been calculated differently. For instance, the detail from November 28, 2017, and February 6, 2018, indicate that Mia checked in late to school at 7:50 a.m. both days but calculates an absence of .02 on November 28, 2017, and .11 on February 6, 2018.
Although there is no explanation for some of these small inconsistences in tracking Mia's absences, the juvenile court found the documents establishing that Mia had...
To continue reading
Request your trial