In re Interest of Emma J.

in re interest of emmA J., A child under 18 yeArs of Age .
stAte of nebrAskA, Appellee , v.
geneo J., AppellAnt.
782 N.W.2d 330
Filed May 11, 2010. 	No. A-09-1031.
1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. Juvenile cases are reviewed de novo on the
record, and an appellate court is required to reach a conclusion independent of the
juvenile court’s findings.
2. Evidence: Appeal and Error. When the evidence is in conflict, 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.
3. Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Proof. In order for a juvenile court to assume
jurisdiction of minor children under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue
2008), the State must prove the allegations of the petition by a preponderance of
the evidence.
4. Juvenile Courts: Evidence: Proof. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2008)
requires that the State prove the allegations set forth in the petition by a prepon-
derance of the evidence in cases involving both non-Indian and Indian children.
Appeal 	from 	the 	Separate 	Juvenile 	Court 	of 	Lancaster
County: reggie l. ryder, Judge. Affirmed in part, and in part
reversed and remanded with directions.
Laura A. Lowe, p.C., for appellant.
Gary Lacey, Lancaster County Attorney, and Barbara J.
Armstead for appellee.
inbody, Chief Judge, and sievers and cAssel, Judges.
inbody, Chief Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Geneo J. appeals from an order of the separate juvenile court
of Lancaster County, adjudicating his minor child, emma J., as
a juvenile within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a)
(Reissue 2008) and placing her outside of the home.
STATeMeNT OF FACTS
Procedural History.
On May 20, 2009, the State filed a petition alleging that
emma was a child within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a) by
reason that emma lacked proper parental care by reason of the
IN Re INTeReST OF eMMA J. 	389
Cite as 18 Neb. App. 389
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:13 AM CST

faults or habits of her father, Geneo, and her mother, Venessa J.
Specifically, the petition alleges that in 2007, emma’s older
sisters, eva J. and Shakeela J., were adjudicated as a result of
being subjected to inappropriate physical discipline by Geneo,
and that Venessa had made threatening and rejecting state-
ments and failed to protect eva and Shakeela. The petition
alleges that services designed to correct those matters were
put into place, but did not correct the issue; that Geneo and
Venessa relinquished their parental rights to Shakeela; and
that eva had turned 19 years of age and was no longer subject
to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. The petition alleges that
on May 18, 2009, emma reported inappropriate discipline by
Geneo, and that Geneo had threatened to force emma to have
an abortion. The petition also alleges that “active efforts have
been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative
programs to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that
these efforts have proven unsuccessful.” As noted, the petition
asserts that the case involves an “Indian family,” but does not
contain any specific references to the Indian Child Welfare
Act (ICWA). A supplemental transcript was filed by the State
which indicates that on June 10, the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska
filed a motion to intervene because emma was “an ‘Indian
child’ as defined by the [ICWA], 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4) and the
Nebraska [ICWA].”
Additionally, the State filed an ex parte motion for tempo-
rary custody, which was granted by the juvenile court, and
emma was placed with a foster family, specifically the family
with whom her older sisters, eva and Shakeela, were placed
and where Shakeela still resided. Also included by the State in
the supplemental transcript is an order continuing temporary
custody with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS), which order indicates that the juvenile court
determined that emma’s therapist was an expert witness who
testified that continued custody of emma with Geneo would
result in serious emotional or physical damage and that active
efforts “including a pretreatment assessment, visitation for
[Venessa], counseling services, and a comprehensive family
assessment have been made or are being offered to the fam-
ily to provide remedial services and rehabilitation programs
390 	18 NeBRASkA AppeLLATe RepORTS

designed to prevent the breakup of the family and those efforts
have proved unsuccessful.”
On August 5, 2009, the State also filed a motion to allow
emma to testify in chambers alleging that Geneo’s or Venessa’s
presence during her testimony could be harmful to her. After a
hearing on the motion, the juvenile court sustained the State’s
motion and allowed emma to testify in court, with Geneo and
Venessa outside of the courtroom in conference rooms. During
which time, Geneo’s counsel was given leave every 15 minutes
to leave the courtroom and confer with Geneo. Also, Geneo
was allowed to view the recording of the testimony and further
examine emma at the continued hearing date.
On August 20 and September 29, 2009, the matter came on
for hearing for adjudication on the petition. Geneo and Venessa
entered denials on the allegations, and testimony and evidence
were submitted to the juvenile court.
Adjudication Hearing Testimony.
At the adjudication hearing, emma testified that she was
15 years old and was a junior at a high school in Lincoln,
Nebraska. emma testified that she was involved in high school
softball and basketball and that during the spring of 2009, she
participated on the high school track team. During a track meet
on May 14, emma participated in the 800-meter relay race, but
her family did not see her run because they arrived after her race
had already concluded. emma indicated that after her race, she
hung out with friends and her boyfriend. emma agreed that her
parents did not approve of her boyfriend because they believed
him to be a bad influence and that she was not supposed to be
around him. emma testified that as a result of hanging out with
her boyfriend at the track meet, she was grounded and ordered
by Geneo to quit the track team.
emma testified that on May 15, 2009, a Friday, Geneo
picked up both her and one of her brothers, Tommy J., and
inquired of Tommy as to whether emma had been with her
boyfriend that day. Tommy indicated that he had seen emma
and her boyfriend speaking at school. emma testified that
she got out of the car and went upstairs to her room because
she knew she was going to be in trouble for speaking to her
IN Re INTeReST OF eMMA J. 	391
Cite as 18 Neb. App. 389

boyfriend. emma explained that Geneo followed her to her
room, yelled at her, and hit her with a closed fist above her left
ear on the back of her head and that she fell down. emma testi-
fied that Geneo ordered her to go downstairs and stand on her
tiptoes in the kitchen corner. emma testified that once she was
in the corner, Geneo continued to yell at her, compared her to
her older sisters, and told her he wished he had no daughters.
emma testified that during this time, her mother, Venessa, was
home, along with Tommy and her older half brother, Angelo S.,
and their small children, but they had gone upstairs to avoid the
yelling. emma explained that Geneo hit her approximately five
times with a closed fist and grabbed her around the neck and
threw her across the kitchen. emma explained that it hurt when
Geneo hit her and that she caught herself as she hit the coun-
ter and the stove. emma testified that at that time, her mother
came in and told Geneo to stop.
emma testified that Geneo left the house to go to her
boyfriend’s house and that she remained in the corner because
she was upset and did not want to speak with anyone. Shortly
thereafter, Geneo returned and the police also arrived at the
home. emma testified that Geneo told her to go wash her face
and that he then ordered her to come and speak with the police.
emma explained that two police officers were outside of the
home and that she did not tell either officer about the incident
which had just taken place with Geneo because both Geneo
and Venessa were standing right there and she was scared to
tell the police anything.
emma testified that she was grounded and that no other
incident occurred between her and Geneo during the weekend.
emma indicated that on Monday, she did not want to return
home and that instead, she contacted her sister Shakeela.
emma testified that she told her sisters and their foster mother
about the incident which had occurred on Friday and that she
contacted the police to file an abuse report. emma testified that
when the police arrived at the foster family’s home, she told
a police officer everything about Friday’s incidents, including
that she was scared to return home. emma also indicated that
Geneo had thought she was pregnant, even though she was not
and had not told anyone that she was.
392 	18 NeBRASkA AppeLLATe RepORTS

emma also testified that in February 2009, Geneo had hit
her in the head with a closed fist. emma explained that when
she was younger, Geneo used a belt to discipline her, but
that as she got older, he used his fists and hands. emma also
explained that on numerous occasions, Geneo would call her a
“ho,” “whore,” and “slut.”
Chris Fields, an officer with the Lincoln police Department,
testified that on May 15, 2009, he responded to a call for a
child welfare check of emma at Geneo and Venessa’s resi-
dence. Fields testified that he spoke with Geneo and emma
and that he did not observe any marks on emma’s face or neck.
Fields testified that emma refused to step away from the house
and that he was not able to speak with emma outside of the
presence of Geneo. Fields testified that emma was crying and
upset and indicated to him she was grounded, but that she did
not tell Fields she had been hurt by Geneo. Fields explained
that as a result of his contact with Geneo and emma, he did not
feel further action was necessary, and that he believed emma
was safe.
Tommy, one of emma’s older brothers, testified that on
May 15, 2009, he told Geneo that emma had been with her
boyfriend and Geneo called emma to come downstairs when
Geneo came in the house. Tommy testified that Geneo was not
yelling at emma, but he simply had a deep voice. Tommy testi-
fied that he saw emma in the corner in the kitchen and that he
heard a loud bang from the kitchen area around that time, but
did not see anything else because he and the other members of
the family were upstairs. Tommy testified that the family was
together throughout the weekend and that emma did not talk
about any injuries.
Angelo, emma’s older half brother, testified that he was at
Geneo’s home on May 15, 2009, and heard Geneo yelling at
emma. Angelo also heard a loud bang from the kitchen during
the yelling, but he did not see anything because he was upstairs.
Angelo testified that when he returned downstairs, Geneo was
gone and emma was standing in the corner. Angelo explained
that emma did not appear to be in any physical distress at
that time. Angelo testified that he graduated from college that
weekend and that emma was busy during that time with her
IN Re INTeReST OF eMMA J. 	393
Cite as 18 Neb. App. 389

mother and other friends and family planning and organizing
his graduation party.
The director of church relations for the people’s City
Mission, who was Geneo’s pastor, testified that on Saturday,
May 16, 2009, Geneo brought emma to the pastor’s home
to speak with her about her relationship with Geneo and the
choices she was making. Geneo’s pastor testified that he did
not observe any bruises or marks on emma and that emma did
not indicate that Geneo had harmed her in any way. Geneo’s
pastor explained that Geneo was at his “wit’s end” and that it
was probably a good idea that emma be somewhere else where
she would receive supervision that she would listen to.
Tyler Cooper, an officer with the Lincoln police Department,
testified that on May 18, 2009, he received a call that emma
was missing and had run away. On the way to Geneo and
Venessa’s home, he received another call reporting that Geneo
had abused emma. Cooper testified that he took a runaway
report from Geneo and Venessa, during which Geneo told
Cooper that he had heard emma was pregnant and that if he
found her, he was going “to make her have an abortion as it
was his right because he’s [emma’s] father.” Cooper testified
that emma had reported to him that Geneo had hit her on the
right side of the head, made her stand in the corner, grabbed
her by the neck, threw her into the kitchen, and threw things at
her. Cooper testified that he did not see any bruising or marks
on emma and that she did not report that Geneo had hit her
five times. However, Cooper explained that after speaking with
Child protective Services, he determined that it was appropriate
to take emma into protective custody because emma’s circum-
stances were very similar to past instances involving Geneo
and emma’s older sisters and that there was also an additional
abuse report made by emma the week before, even though that
report was unfounded.
Dawn 	Moore, 	also 	an 	officer 	with 	the 	Lincoln 	police
Department, testified that she was called to the foster family’s
residence on May 18, 2009, to take photographs of emma.
Moore testified that she took photographs of emma’s arms,
back, and hips and did not observe any markings or bruising.
Moore testified that in the course of her duties, she has worked
394 	18 NeBRASkA AppeLLATe RepORTS

with victims of assault, and that injuries or marks are not dis-
positive of whether an assault actually occurred.
kim Bro, an initial assessment worker for DHHS, testified
that she became involved with emma’s case in February 2009,
when emma was still living in Geneo’s home. Bro explained
that on May 19, she went to emma’s high school to speak with
emma. Bro testified that, on that same day, she also contacted
Geneo and Venessa and that Venessa indicated several times
that day that she did not want to see emma and had wasted
too much time on her older daughters and was not going to
waste any more time with emma. Bro testified that Geneo also
indicated that he did not want to see emma and further that he
did not understand what the problem was because “he had done
nothing to her worse than had been done to him in prison.” Bro
indicated that during each of her conversations with Geneo,
he was very angry, and that she ended several conversations
with him because he would become verbally abusive. Bro
testified that she conducted two separate in-person interviews
with Geneo and Venessa, in addition to the various telephone
conversations. Bro testified that she knew other people were
in the home during the May 15 incident, but she did not speak
with them as Geneo had told her she was not allowed to speak
with them. Bro testified that, in her opinion, she did not recom-
mend that emma be placed with Geneo or Venessa because she
was concerned for emma’s safety based upon the allegations
of abuse.
After taking the matter under advisement, the juvenile court
found that all of the allegations in the petition were true by
clear and convincing evidence, adjudicated emma as a child
within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a), and determined that
emma lacked proper care by reason of the fault or habits of
Geneo and Venessa. The juvenile court found that active efforts
have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative
programs to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that
those efforts have been unsuccessful. The court also ordered
that all temporary orders issued in the case remain in full force
and effect pending a predisposition report to be completed by
DHHS. From this order, Geneo has timely appealed. Venessa
did not file a notice of appeal.
IN Re INTeReST OF eMMA J. 	395
Cite as 18 Neb. App. 389

ASSIGNMeNTS OF eRROR
Geneo assigns that the juvenile court erred by adjudicating
emma as within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a), determining
that the active efforts were made to prevent the breakup of the
Indian family, and continuing out-of-home placement orders
without the expert testimony required under ICWA. See Neb.
Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1501 to 43-1516 (Reissue 2008).
STANDARD OF ReVIeW
[1,2] Juvenile cases are reviewed de novo on the record, and
an appellate court is required to reach a conclusion indepen-
dent of the juvenile court’s findings. In re Interest of Taylor W.,
276 Neb. 679, 757 N.W.2d 1 (2008); In re Interest of Jagger
L., 270 Neb. 828, 708 N.W.2d 802 (2006); In re Interest of
Shayla H., 17 Neb. App. 436, 764 N.W.2d 119 (2009). When
the evidence is in conflict, however, an appellate court may
give weight to the fact that the lower court observed the wit-
nesses and accepted one version of the facts over the other. In
re Interest of Jagger L., supra.
ANALYSIS
Adjudication.
Geneo contends that the juvenile court erred by adjudicat-
ing emma as a child within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a).
Specifically, Geneo argues that, in accordance with In re
Interest of Phoenix, 270 Neb. 870, 708 N.W.2d 786 (2006),
when adjudicating a petition involving an Indian family, the
State has a heightened burden to prove the allegations by clear
and convincing evidence. The State argues that, for the adjudi-
cation phase of the proceedings, the burden of proof remains a
preponderance of the evidence.
Let us start with our review of In re Interest of Phoenix,
supra. We find that Geneo’s reliance upon this case for the
proposition of the heightened burden of proof for an ICWA
adjudication is misplaced. A closer reading of In re Interest
of Phoenix indicates that the language from which Geneo
chooses to rely upon, in full, deals with the burden of proof
for the termination of parental rights for non-Indian children
and does not place upon the State the burden of proving the
396 	18 NeBRASkA AppeLLATe RepORTS

allegations in an adjudication petition by clear and convinc-
ing evidence.
We agree with the State that there is no authority for an
enhanced burden of proof in an ICWA adjudication; there is,
however, an indication in the cases involving said subject mat-
ter that the standard most generally applied at the juvenile court
level in ICWA adjudication proceedings is clear and convincing
evidence, although, the subject has not been directly addressed
as a result of deciding the cases on other grounds. See, In re
Interest of Shayla H., supra (trial court determined that State
proved allegations contained in adjudication petition by clear
and convincing evidence; assignment of error not addressed
as case was reversed and remanded on other grounds); In re
Interest of Dakota L., 14 Neb. App. 559, 712 N.W.2d 583
(2006) (trial court found that ICWA adjudication required
enhanced burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence
which was assigned as error by appellant but not addressed
as case was reversed and remanded on other grounds); In re
Interest of Enrique P. et al., 14 Neb. App. 453, 709 N.W.2d 676
(2006) (at adjudication hearing, trial court informed mother that
burden of proof was enhanced to clear and convincing evidence
as result of children’s tribal enrollment status, but adjudicated
children based upon preponderance of evidence, although no
direct appeal was perfected from adjudication).
[3] Generally, at the adjudication stage, in order for a
juvenile court to assume jurisdiction of minor children under
§ 43-247(3)(a), the State must prove the allegations of the
petition by a preponderance of the evidence. Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 43-279.01(3) (Reissue 2008); In re Interest of B.R. et al., 270
Neb. 685, 708 N.W.2d 586 (2005); In re Interest of Rebekah T.
et al., 11 Neb. App. 507, 654 N.W.2d 744 (2002).
[4] The language of Nebraska’s ICWA statutes does not
specifically set forth any particular standard of proof for an
adjudication proceeding; it does, however, expressly require
the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence in the
instance where a party is “seeking to effect a foster care
placement of, or termination of parental rights, to an Indian
child.” § 43-1505(4). Whereas, § 43-247 specifically states
IN Re INTeReST OF eMMA J. 	397
Cite as 18 Neb. App. 389

that “[n]otwithstanding the provisions of the Nebraska Juvenile
Code, the determination of jurisdiction over any Indian child
as defined in section 43-1503 shall be subject to the Nebraska
[ICWA] . . . .” Therefore, having no language set forth within
the ICWA statutes to indicate a heightened or enhanced bur-
den of proof for the adjudication phase of the juvenile pro-
ceedings, we find that § 43-247(3)(a) requires that the State
prove the allegations set forth in the petition by a preponder-
ance of the evidence in cases involving both non-Indian and
Indian children.
Having made this determination, we turn to Geneo’s argu-
ment that the State failed to meet its burden of proof, not-
withstanding his assertion that the burden of proof for adju-
dicating a juvenile under ICWA is enhanced. Geneo argues
that there was a “[l]ack of evidentiary nexus between [the]
previous adjudication involving Shakeela and eva and [the]
risk of harm to emma” and, furthermore, that there was no
evidence that Geneo’s statement to law enforcement that he
would force emma to have an abortion presented a situation
of risk to emma. Brief for appellant at 18 (emphasis omitted).
Geneo contends that these circumstances are a direct result of
“emma’s grand plan” to get what she wanted through fabrica-
tion and manipulation. Brief for appellant at 20.
In this case, the petition alleges that emma’s two older
sisters were adjudicated in 2007 as a result of Geneo’s subject-
ing them to inappropriate physical discipline and Venessa’s
failure to protect, that Geneo subjected emma to inappropriate
discipline, that Geneo threatened to force emma to have an
abortion, and that the matters leading to the adjudication of
emma’s sisters remained uncorrected and placed emma at risk
of harm.
The record indicates that subsequent to the adjudication
of eva and Shakeela, Geneo and Venessa relinquished their
parental rights to Shakeela, but eva had turned 19 years of age
and was no longer subject to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.
The record indicates that the allegations arising out of eva
and Shakeela’s petition are nearly identical to those involving
emma. emma testified that on May 15, 2009, Geneo discov-
ered that she had been talking to her boyfriend, even though
398 	18 NeBRASkA AppeLLATe RepORTS

Geneo had forbidden her to do so. emma testified that Geneo
yelled at her and hit her several times in the back of the head
with a closed fist, pushed her down, and ordered her to go to
the kitchen and stand in the corner. emma testified that while
she stood in the corner, Geneo continued to yell and hit her
in the back of the head. emma explained that Geneo called
her a “ho,” “whore,” and “slut.” emma explained that Geneo
grabbed her around her neck and threw her across the kitchen,
at which point Venessa intervened and told Geneo to stop.
emma explained that when she was younger, he would disci-
pline her by hitting her with a belt, but that as she got older,
he would hit her with his fists and hands. emma testified that
she did not tell the police what had occurred when they were at
the home on May 15, 2009, because she was scared since her
mother and father were there. emma testified that she did not
call the police and that she participated in graduation events for
her half brother during the weekend without incident. emma
explained that on Monday, May 18, she told Shakeela what
happened on the Friday before and that she did not want to go
home on Monday because she was still scared.
emma testified that in the past, Geneo had accused her older
sisters of being pregnant and had thought he assumed the same
of her even though emma testified that she was not pregnant
and had never told him or anyone else that she was pregnant.
Furthermore, Cooper testified that he took a runaway report
from Geneo, during which time Geneo told Cooper that he had
heard emma was pregnant and that if he found her, he was
going “to make her have an abortion as it was his right because
he’s [emma’s] father.”
Geneo entered a denial of the allegations contained within
the petition and presented testimony to refute emma’s asser-
tions, generally attempting to show inconsistencies in emma’s
testimony regarding specific timeframes of the incident and
emma’s continued contact with her boyfriend. However, we
give weight to the fact that the juvenile court observed the
witnesses and chose to believe emma. See In re Interest of
Monique H., 12 Neb. App. 612, 681 N.W.2d 423 (2004). Thus,
upon our de novo review of the evidence in the record, it is clear
that the State proved the elements of the petition for emma’s
IN Re INTeReST OF eMMA J. 	399
Cite as 18 Neb. App. 389

adjudication as a child within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a) by
a preponderance of the evidence.
Active Efforts and Expert Testimony.
Geneo argues the juvenile court erred in finding that the
State made active efforts to provide remedial services and
rehabilitative programs to prevent the breakup of the Indian
family and that those efforts were unsuccessful, and in remov-
ing emma from the family home and placing her in foster care
without expert testimony as required under ICWA.
Section 43-1505(4) provides:
Any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of . . .
an Indian child under state law shall satisfy the court that
active efforts have been made to provide remedial serv-
ices and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the
breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have
proved unsuccessful.
See, also, In re Interest of Louis S., 17 Neb. App. 867, 774
N.W.2d 416 (2009).
Additionally, pursuant to ICWA, qualified expert testimony
is required on the issue of whether serious emotional harm or
physical damage to the Indian child is likely to occur if the
child is not removed from the home before foster care place-
ment may be ordered. See § 43-1505(5).
Section 43-1505(5) provides:
No foster care placement may be ordered in such proceed-
ing in the absence of a determination, supported by clear
and convincing evidence, including testimony of qualified
expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child
by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in seri-
ous emotional or physical damage to the child.
See In re Interest of Phoebe S. & Rebekah S., 11 Neb. App.
919, 664 N.W.2d 470 (2003).
Geneo asserts in his brief that the State presented no evi-
dence as to what, if any, active efforts had been made to
prevent emma’s placement in foster care and further failed
to present any expert testimony. In response, the State claims
that the evidence presented at a temporary custody hearing
on June 11, 2009, supports the juvenile court’s finding that
400 	18 NeBRASkA AppeLLATe RepORTS

active efforts had been made and the requisite expert testimony
was given.
A supplemental transcript was filed by the State, contain-
ing a June 11, 2009, order regarding a motion for temporary
custody in which the juvenile court found that active efforts
had been made, including “a pretreatment assessment, visita-
tion for [Venessa], counseling services, and a comprehensive
family assessment.” The order further indicates that the juve-
nile court determined that emma’s therapist “is a profes-
sional person having substantial education and experience in
the area of her specialty.” The juvenile court’s September 30
order for adjudication specifically finds that active efforts had
been made.
However, a close review indicates that, in the record before
this court, there is no evidence regarding active efforts, nor
is there any evidence of expert testimony. In fact, it is clear
that the issue of active efforts was not further addressed by
the State at the adjudication hearing, even though the juvenile
court found that there had been sufficient active efforts. even
if this court were to presume that the issues had been previ-
ously addressed by virtue of the June 11, 2009, order, which
we do not, there is nothing in the record to substantiate that
any efforts had been taken from that time until the adjudica-
tion, and no further expert testimony was given at the adjudi-
cation hearing.
We find that there is no evidence of any active efforts pre-
sented by the State and that there was no expert testimony
given as required by ICWA to support continued out-of-home
placement of emma. Therefore, the juvenile court erred in
determining that such efforts had been made and that such tes-
timony was presented by the State.
CONCLUSION
In sum, we find that the proper burden of proof for the
adjudication of an Indian child is by a preponderance of the
evidence. In this case, the State proved by a preponderance
of the evidence that emma was a child within the meaning
of § 43-247(3)(a) and we affirm the juvenile court’s order of
adjudication. However, we find that the record is devoid of any
IN Re INTeReST OF eMMA J. 	401
Cite as 18 Neb. App. 389

evidence of active efforts and expert testimony as required by
ICWA for out-of-home placement of an Indian child. Therefore,
we reverse the portion of the judgment ordering emma’s con-
tinued out-of-home placement. We further remand the cause
with directions to return emma to Geneo’s home, unless a
hearing is held to remove her from the home in compliance
with ICWA.
A ffirmed in pArt, And in pArt reversed
And remAnded with directions.
402 	18 NeBRASkA AppeLLATe RepORTS