EMERGENCY WORK!! NEED RIGHT NOW!

In the re-interest of Kevin. The state of Nebraska v. Kevin. K. 742 N.W.2d 767 (2007). This case was decided on December 21, 2007.

Background and Facts

Kevin was adjudicated for habitual truancy and filed a motion to terminate jurisdiction based on the fact that his mother signed a release authorizing his withdrawal from school. The separate Juvenile court of Lancaster county terminated its jurisdiction, and the state appealed when the Juvenile and Department of Health and Human Serviced petitioned the case for further review. Kevin admitted to the allegations of truancy and the juvenile court placed him under the legal custody of Nebraska Department of Health and Human services (Stephan, 2007). Kevin was ordered to attend summer school and attend all scheduled classes. On the other hand, his mother was ordered not to provide him with an excuse from school and any illness will be verified by the school nurse.

Issues

The main issue that developed, in this case, was the best interest of the child and who had the authority to decide whether or not the child should remain enrolled in school past the age of 16. Under the compulsory attendance law, school authorities had authority to grant permission to be absent thus parental consent to be an absence of a child who was legally required to attend school did not alter the fact if truancy.

Decision of the Highest Court

The supreme court held that mother's signing of release ended juvenile's status as a truant and it was no longer necessary for the juvenile court to exercise its jurisdiction. The juvenile court ordered did not prohibit the mother from exercising her statutory right to discontinue juvenile's school enrollment when he reached the age of 16.

Reasons

The court provided compulsory attendance under the reasoning that, the state required school age children between the age of 6 to 18 years to attend school. The majority had a substantial effect on the decisions made by the juvenile court which provided that, at the age of 16, the child can withdraw from school as long as the guardian provides a signed, notarized release discontinuing their enrolment. The dissented reason by the supreme court provided that, because Kevin's mother has authorized discontinuation of his school enrollment, Kevin was no longer considered a truant and the sole basis of the juvenile court's jurisdiction had no basis.

Comments

Due to the subsequent amendment of the compulsory school attendance statutes, the principle no longer applies in the case where children have not reached the mandatory attendance age. In 2004, the state of Nebraska made school attendance mandatory for children between the age of 6 and 18 who have not obtained a high school diploma (Coleman, 2010). This case resulted from the failure of an individual to comply with compulsory attendance laws in which are also known as statutory compulsory education laws. Truancy is not a crime and juveniles adjudicated as habitually truant are considered status offenders under the Nebraska Juvenile Code. This code provides that, juvenile court's jurisdiction over an adjudicated individual shall continue until the individual reaches the age of majority (Coleman, 2010). In my own opinion, I think the court noted that the termination of Kevin's education and his enrollment to the GED program does not bode well for the development of his mental, physical and health in an effort to protect his interest.

References

Coleman, J. (2010). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.