In re Interest of Nowa K.

- 446 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF NOWA K.
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 446
In re Interest of Nowa K., a child
under 18 years of age.
State of Nebraska, appellee,
v. Nowa K., appellant.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed February 11, 2025. 	Nos. A-24-305 through A-24-307.
1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juve-
nile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions indepen-
dently of the juvenile court’s findings.
2. Juvenile Courts: Probation and Parole: Pleadings. Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 43-286(5) (Cum. Supp. 2024) authorizes a juvenile court to change
an existing disposition of probation, but its power to do so is premised
upon the existence of an appropriate motion and upon its compliance
with the specified procedures.
3. Juvenile Courts. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-286(6) (Cum. Supp. 2024)
restricts a juvenile court’s ability to change a juvenile’s disposition.
4. Constitutional Law: Due Process. Generally, procedural due process
requires parties whose rights are to be affected by a proceeding to be
given timely notice, which is reasonably calculated to inform the person
concerning the subject and issues involved in the proceeding; a reason-
able opportunity to refute or defend against a charge or accusation; a
reasonable opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses
and present evidence on the charge or accusation; representation by
counsel, when such representation is required by constitution or statute;
and a hearing before an impartial decisionmaker.
Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County:
Mary M.Z. Stevens, Judge. Reversed and remanded with
directions.
Christine D. Henningsen for appellant.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 07:23 AM CDT

- 447 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF NOWA K.
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 446
Laura E. Lemoine, Deputy Douglas County Attorney, and
Trenton Hoeft, Senior Certified Law Student, for appellee.
Riedmann, 	Chief 	Judge, 	and 	Pirtle 	and 	Arterburn,
Judges.
Riedmann, Chief Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Nowa K. appeals from the order of the separate juve-
nile court of Douglas County that terminated his probation
unsatisfactorily, ordered that his record remain unsealed, and
terminated the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Because the
procedure utilized by the juvenile court was unauthorized and
violated Nowa’s due process rights, we reverse the judgment
of the juvenile court and remand the cause with directions.
BACKGROUND
Nowa, born in July 2006, was involved in three separate
cases before the juvenile court. The first two cases at issue are
those in case Nos. A-24-305 and A-24-306. Both originated in
the separate juvenile court of Douglas County in December
2018. In both cases, Nowa was adjudicated under Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 43-247(1) (Reissue 2016). He was placed on an open-
ended term of probation in February 2020. In April 2023, this
was changed to “administrative probation.” The third case
involved in this appeal, case No. A-24-307, began in the sepa-
rate juvenile court of Lancaster County in December 2020.
In October 2021, Nowa was adjudicated in that case under
§ 43-247(2). That same month, the case was transferred to the
separate juvenile court of Douglas County.
A February 2024 “Continuance Order” was filed in all
three cases. It noted that Nowa and the State each offered
one exhibit that was received into evidence. Referencing the
State’s exhibit, the order stated that Nowa entered a plea of
no contest to one count of robbery, a Class II felony, and one
count of theft by unlawful taking, $5,000 or more, a Class IIA
felony, both in Douglas County District Court, and that the
matter was set for sentencing on July 11.

- 448 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF NOWA K.
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 446
At a hearing on March 22, 2024, on Nowa’s motion to add
an authorized visitor, the State made an oral motion to termi-
nate the jurisdiction of the juvenile court in all three cases.
The State noted that Nowa had pled to serious charges in the
district court, Nowa had counsel in that case, and there was
not a need “to keep coming into juvenile court when he is now
in an adult situation and he’s obviously facing some pretty sig-
nificant sentence[s].” The State specified that it was not alleg-
ing a violation of probation or asking to terminate probation;
it was asking only to terminate the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court. The State offered no evidence in support of its motion.
Nowa and his guardian ad litem objected to the motion.
Following the hearing, the juvenile court entered an order
in all three cases finding that Nowa did not satisfactorily com-
plete probation, terminating his probation as unsatisfactorily
completed, ordering that his record remain unsealed at that
time, and terminating the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
Nowa appeals.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Nowa assigns that the juvenile court erred in overruling his
objection to the State’s motion to terminate jurisdiction that
did not comport with the basic tenants of due process, erred
in terminating his probation unsatisfactorily, and erred in ter-
minating jurisdiction over him and ordering that his records
not be sealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on
the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the
juvenile court’s findings. In re Interest of Gunner B., 312 Neb.
697, 980 N.W.2d 863 (2022).
ANALYSIS
Nowa’s assignments of error all relate to a March 27, 2024,
order issued by the juvenile court following a hearing on his
motion to add an authorized visitor, which he withdrew at the

- 449 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF NOWA K.
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 446
hearing. After the juvenile court recognized that the motion
was withdrawn, the State orally moved that the juvenile court
terminate its jurisdiction based upon Nowa’s no contest plea
“to some very serious charges in District Court” of which
“the Court is very well aware.” However, no testimony was
adduced, no exhibits were offered, and the juvenile court was
not asked to take judicial notice of any pleadings. Our record
consists only of arguments made by counsel at the hearing.
[2] Following the hearing, the juvenile court issued an order
terminating Nowa’s probation as unsatisfactorily completed,
terminating its jurisdiction over him, and ordering that his
records not be sealed. Although we note the State specifically
argued that it was not seeking a revocation of Nowa’s proba-
tion, the court’s order terminating Nowa’s probation as unsat-
isfactorily completed did just that, resulting in Nowa’s record
not being sealed. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-286.01(10) (Cum.
Supp. 2024) (providing juvenile’s record be sealed upon suc-
cessful completion of probation). Prior to a revocation of
a juvenile’s probation, however, certain statutory procedures
must be followed to protect a juvenile’s procedural rights.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-286(5) (Cum. Supp. 2024) authorizes a
juvenile court to change an existing disposition of probation,
but its power to do so is premised upon the existence of an
appropriate motion and upon its compliance with the speci-
fied procedures. In re Interest of Josue G., 299 Neb. 784, 910
N.W.2d 159 (2018).
Pursuant to § 43-247, a juvenile court acquires jurisdic-
tion of:
(1) Any juvenile who has committed an act other than
a traffic offense which would constitute a misdemeanor
or an infraction under the laws of this state, or violation
of a city or village ordinance, and who, beginning July 1,
2017, was eleven years of age or older at the time the act
was committed;
(2) Any juvenile who has committed an act which
would constitute a felony under the laws of this state

- 450 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF NOWA K.
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 446
and who, beginning July 1, 2017, was eleven years of
age or older at the time the act was committed.
Once the juvenile court acquires jurisdiction over a juve-
nile under § 43-247(1) or (2), further proceedings are gov-
erned statutorily. See § 43-286 (disposition options). One
option, as exercised here, is to place the juvenile on proba-
tion. See § 43-286(1)(a)(i). Once this has been done, further
disposition is also governed by statute. Section 43-286(5) sets
forth the procedure to follow if it is alleged that the juvenile
is again a juvenile described in subsection (1), (2), (3)(b), or
(4) of § 43-247 or if it is alleged the juvenile has violated a
term of probation or supervision or has violated an order of
the court.
[3] Moreover, § 43-286(6) restricts a juvenile court’s ability
to change a juvenile’s disposition. Section 43-286(6) states:
(6)(a) Except as provided in subdivision (6)(b) of this
section, the court shall not change a disposition unless
the court finds that the juvenile has violated a term or
condition of probation or supervision or an order of the
court and the procedures in subdivision (5)(b) of this sec-
tion have been satisfied.
(b) Upon motion of the juvenile, the court may modify
the terms or conditions of probation or supervision or
modify a dispositional order if:
(i) All parties stipulate to the particular modifica-
tion; and
(ii) The juvenile has consulted with counsel or has
waived counsel. Any waiver must be particular to the
modification and shall comply with section 43-3102.
Certain other individuals, excluding the State, may also
request changes in probation. Section 43-286.01(10) provides:
During the term of probation, the court, on application
of a probation officer or of the juvenile or on its own
motion, may reduce or eliminate any of the conditions
imposed on the juvenile. Upon completion of the term
of probation or the earlier discharge of the juvenile, the

- 451 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF NOWA K.
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 446
juvenile shall be relieved of any obligations imposed
by the order of the court and his or her record shall be
sealed pursuant to section 43-2,108.04.
The State does not direct us to any statutory authority that
allows a juvenile court to otherwise change an adjudicated
juvenile’s disposition, nor have we located any. Therefore,
because the State did not comply with the statutory require-
ments for revocation of probation pursuant to § 43-286 and
neither a probation officer nor Nowa requested elimination of
probation under § 43-286.01—and the court’s order was not
based upon its own motion to do so—it was improper for the
court to revoke probation and terminate its jurisdiction.
[4] Additionally, even if we were to construe the court’s
revocation of probation as being done on its own motion,
Nowa had no notice of the State’s request to terminate juris-
diction that led to the court’s order and was thus denied due
process. The Nebraska Supreme Court has held that even in
situations in which the full panoply of procedures common to
civil trials do not apply, due process does impose some basic
requirements. See, Yerania O. v. Juan P., 310 Neb. 749, 969
N.W.2d 121 (2022); Mahmood v. Mahmud, 279 Neb. 390, 778
N.W.2d 426 (2010). This generally requires parties whose
rights are to be affected by a proceeding to be given timely
notice, which is reasonably calculated to inform the person
concerning the subject and issues involved in the proceeding;
a reasonable opportunity to refute or defend against a charge
or accusation; a reasonable opportunity to confront and cross-
examine adverse witnesses and present evidence on the charge
or accusation; representation by counsel, when such repre-
sentation is required by constitution or statute; and a hearing
before an impartial decisionmaker. See Yerania O. v. Juan
P., supra. It also requires some type of evidence, meaning
testimony must be under oath and documents must be admit-
ted into evidence before being considered. See Mahmood v.
Mahmud, supra. See, also, In re Interest of Jordan B., 300

- 452 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
IN RE INTEREST OF NOWA K.
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 446
Neb. 355, 913 N.W.2d 477 (2018) (recognizing due process
requirement for juveniles).
Here, Nowa was not given advance notice of the State’s
motion. Although the State had previously moved for the
juvenile court to terminate jurisdiction, the juvenile court
stated it would not entertain such a motion until after Nowa
was sentenced. At the time of the March 22, 2024, hearing,
Nowa had not yet been sentenced and was not scheduled for
sentencing until July. Aside from the State making an oral
motion at a hearing scheduled solely on Nowa’s motion to add
an authorized visitor, no evidence was offered or received;
no witnesses testified, no exhibits were offered, and the court
was not requested to take judicial notice of any prior orders.
Consequently, in addition to the violation of Nowa’s due proc-
ess rights, the juvenile court had no evidence upon which it
could base its findings. We find in our de novo review that the
evidence is insufficient to support the juvenile court’s order.
See Mahmood v. Mahmud, supra.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment and
remand the cause with directions to vacate the juvenile court’s
order dated March 27, 2024.
Reversed and remanded with directions.