In re Interest of Dustin S.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, we affirm the conviction and
sentence.
affiRmed .
in Re inteRest of dustin s., a child
undeR 18 yeaRs of age .
state of nebRaska , appellee , v .
dustin s., appellant .
756 N.W.2d 277
Filed October 3, 2008. 	No. S-07-1222.
1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juvenile cases
de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the juvenile
court’s findings.
2. Juvenile Courts: Evidence: Appeal and Error. If an appellate court adjudges
a juvenile to meet the criteria of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(1) through (4) (Cum.
Supp. 2006), the appellate court shall affirm the disposition made by the county
court unless it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the disposition is
not in the best interests of the juvenile.
3. Statutes: Appeal and Error. To the extent an appeal calls for statutory interpre-
tation or presents questions of law, an appellate court must reach an independent
conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below.
4. Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Statutes. As a statutorily created court of limited
and special jurisdiction, a juvenile court has only such authority as has been con-
ferred on it by statute.
5. Juvenile Courts. pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-286 (Reissue 2004), a juve-
nile court has broad discretion as to the disposition of a child found to be
delinquent.
Appeal from the County Court for Wayne County: donna f.
tayloR, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Mandy R. Burkett for appellant.
Amy K. Wiebelhaus, Deputy Wayne County Attorney, for
appellee.
heavican , 	c.J., 	WRight , 	connolly , 	geRRaRd , 	stephan ,
mccoRmack , and milleR-leRman , JJ.
IN Re INTeReST OF DUSTIN S. 	635
Cite as 276 Neb. 635
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:52 AM CST

WRight , J.
NATURe OF CASe
Dustin S., a juvenile, admitted to placing a video camera
in his neighbor’s bedroom closet to record a minor child in a
state of undress. The county court for Wayne County, sitting as
a juvenile court, ordered him to complete 6 months’ probation
with a condition that he spend 6 days in a juvenile detention
center at Madison, Nebraska. Dustin appeals the portion of the
order requiring him to spend 6 days in detention as a part of
his probation.
SCOpe OF ReVIeW
[1] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the
record and reaches its conclusions independently of the juve-
nile court’s findings. In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859,
744 N.W.2d 55 (2008).
[2] If an appellate court adjudges a juvenile to meet the cri-
teria of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(1) through (4) (Cum. Supp.
2006), the appellate court shall affirm the disposition made by
the county court unless it is shown by clear and convincing
evidence that the disposition is not in the best interests of the
juvenile. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2,106 (Reissue 2004).
[3] To the extent an appeal calls for statutory interpretation
or presents questions of law, an appellate court must reach an
independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made
by the court below. In re Interest of Markice M., 275 Neb. 908,
750 N.W.2d 345 (2008).
FACTS
In August 2006, Dustin placed a video camera in the bed-
room closet of his neighbor, a minor child, to record the child
in a state of undress. He showed the video to a friend and
then destroyed it. The friend told the victim about the video.
Subsequently, Dustin was charged in juvenile court with this
unlawful conduct.
When Dustin appeared in juvenile court with his parents, the
court advised him of the potential penalties for his acts:
If you were older you would be subject to a jail sentence
and a fine. Since you’re in juvenile court you can’t be
fined and you can’t be sent to an adult prison facility. But
636 	276 NeBRASKA RepORTS

there’s a range of consequences available to the court if
this is true . . . . It may be that because of this offense
along with other things going on in your life that it’s
not appropriate for you to remain at home. And in that
case you can be removed and placed in a suitable foster
home, group home or other institution including the Youth
Rehabilitation and Treatment Center at Kearney.
Dustin admitted the allegations, and the court found the admis-
sion to be freely, intelligently, and voluntarily made. It ordered
a predispositional investigation, to be conducted by the proba-
tion office.
At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court stated that
the purpose of the hearing was to rehabilitate Dustin and to
provide relief to the victim. The victim had stated in a letter
that she experienced bad dreams and could no longer sleep in
her bedroom. She slept on the floor in her parents’ room. The
victim felt that Dustin acted like nothing had happened, and
she did not believe he felt remorse.
The juvenile court ordered Dustin to complete 6 months of
probation. The conditions of probation included that he obey a
curfew, perform 80 hours of community service, and spend 6
days in a juvenile detention center, commencing December 26,
2007. Regarding the detention, the court stated:
At least you’ll be able to look at [the victim] and say hey,
I didn’t just get off scott free [sic]. I had to spend my
Christmas vacation in detention. And that — then you can
feel like you’ve made it right and she can’t say that you
got off with nothing.
Dustin appeals.
ASSIGNMeNT OF eRROR
Dustin assigns as error the juvenile court’s order of 6 days in
a juvenile detention center as a condition of probation, alleging
that such detention is not a disposition allowed by Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 43-286(1) (Reissue 2004).
ANALYSIS
The issue is whether a court may order a juvenile as described
in § 43-247(1) to serve 6 days in a juvenile detention center as
a condition of probation ordered pursuant to § 43-286(1).
IN Re INTeReST OF DUSTIN S. 	637
Cite as 276 Neb. 635

[4] Juvenile courts have original jurisdiction over individ-
uals age 17 or younger who have committed acts considered
to be misdemeanors under Nebraska state law pursuant to
§ 43-247(1). Dustin was 15 years old when the charges at
issue were filed, and his act of recording a minor child while
undressing would constitute a Class II misdemeanor under
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.08 (Cum. Supp. 2006). Therefore,
Dustin is a juvenile as described in § 43-247(1), and the court
properly exercised jurisdiction. As a statutorily created court of
limited and special jurisdiction, a juvenile court has only such
authority as has been conferred on it by statute. In re Interest of
Jaden H., 263 Neb. 129, 638 N.W.2d 867 (2002).
Section 43-286(1)(a) permits a juvenile court to order resti-
tution, require community service, place the juvenile on proba-
tion, or “[c]ause the juvenile to be placed in a suitable family
home or institution, subject to the supervision of the probation
officer.” Dustin argues that as a statutorily created court, the
juvenile court is limited to the specific dispositions named in
the statute and that 6 days in a juvenile detention center is not
one of those authorized dispositions. We agree.
[5] pursuant to § 43-286, the juvenile court has “‘broad
discretion as to the disposition of a child found to be delin-
quent.’” In re Interest of J.M., 223 Neb. 609, 614, 391 N.W.2d
146, 150 (1986). This discretion specifically includes placing a
juvenile in a suitable institution. See In re Interest of J.A., 244
Neb. 919, 510 N.W.2d 68 (1994). However, we conclude that
detention as a part of an order of probation is not provided by
the juvenile statutes.
Whether the juvenile court may subject a juvenile to deten-
tion as part of the disposition of probation has not previously
been addressed by this court. Detention in the juvenile set-
ting is not analogous to confinement within the scope of the
criminal code. While both may serve similar purposes, such
as rehabilitation, the purpose of punishment is not considered
to be the goal of the juvenile code. Thus, while confinement
is permitted under the juvenile code, we conclude that in the
absence of specific direction by the Legislature, confinement
cannot be used as a part of the disposition of probation.
638 	276 NeBRASKA RepORTS

A similar, but not identical, issue was addressed in People,
Int. of A.F., 192 Colo. 207, 557 p.2d 418 (1976). The petitioner
sought review of a Colorado Court of Appeals decision that
reversed the juvenile court’s ruling that respondents, both juve-
niles, serve weekend jail sentences as a condition of probation.
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. The supreme court
recognized that juvenile courts had authority to commit adju-
dicated delinquents to juvenile group care facilities or training
schools under the supervision of the department of institutions.
Id. The issue was whether a juvenile court had the statutory
authority to impose a limited or partial confinement in the
county jail as a condition of probation for a juvenile under 18
years of age. The supreme court held the juvenile court did not
have such authority.
A distinguishing factor in People, Int. of A.F. was that the
juvenile court had imposed a jail sentence when it had no
authority to do so. However, the supreme court also noted that
the power of a court to impose conditions of probation must
be strictly construed from the applicable statutes and that the
court must therefore defer to the legislature. It is that reasoning
which we find applicable to the case at bar.
We do not construe § 43-286 as providing specific authority
to the juvenile court to mix and match a disposition of con-
finement with one of probation. Dustin was ordered to spend
6 days in a juvenile detention center. Whether this center is a
suitable institution pursuant to § 43-286 is not the issue, but,
rather, it is whether the juvenile court has the authority to
impose confinement as part of an order of probation.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that absent specific authority under the juvenile
code, the juvenile courts of this state do not have the authority
to order the confinement of a juvenile as a condition of proba-
tion in the dispositional portion of the proceeding.
We therefore vacate that portion of the juvenile court’s
order which required that Dustin spend 6 days in a juvenile
detention center. The order of the juvenile court is in all other
respects affirmed.
affiRmed as modified .
IN Re INTeReST OF DUSTIN S. 	639
Cite as 276 Neb. 635