Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Court Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates urge repeal of juvenile court fees in Nebraska as committees hear LB 65
Summary
LB 65 would bar courts from charging juveniles or their families court fees, probation fees and ancillary costs; supporters said fees fall disproportionately on rural and low‑income families and can hinder sealing records and rehabilitation, while a few opponents argued fees teach responsibility
Senator Wendy DeBoer introduced LB 65, a bill to prohibit assessment of court fees, probation charges and other incidental fees against juveniles or their families in juvenile court matters.
DeBoer told the Judiciary Committee that assessing administrative fees against juveniles undermines rehabilitation. “Court fees can be an obstacle to rehabilitation by preventing a court from sealing a juvenile’s court record upon completion of probation if that youth owes court costs,” she said. She cited wide county variation in fee assessment and noted that small, rural counties often assess far more in juvenile fees than larger urban counties.
Voices for Children, the National Center for Youth Law, Nebraska community‑action groups and several formerly court‑involved young people testified in favor. Katie Nungesser of Voices for Children said more than $760,000 in fines, fees and restitution were imposed on youth statewide from 2019 to 2022 and that juvenile court fees are concentrated in smaller counties. Raymond Durham, staff attorney at the National Center for Youth Law, cited research showing juvenile court fees can increase recidivism and erode trust in the justice system.
Community Action of Nebraska provided county‑level data from the Nebraska Supreme Court showing $330,000 in assessed juvenile court fees from 2019–2022 and about $271,000 collected over that period (roughly $67,750 per year). The agency said only about 9% of the collected dollars came from the state’s largest judicial counties; the rest came disproportionately from rural courts. Community Action’s director argued the fiscal note overstates the true net effect on county revenues and urged the Legislature to reconsider relying on juvenile fees to fund court‑related programs.
Several young adults who experienced juvenile proceedings described barriers they faced when their families could not pay fees for diversion programs, drug testing, or even community service registration. One witness said he had to be in out‑of‑state placement and that the supports that helped him succeed were mentorship and stable housing — not fines or fees.
Opponents were limited in number. One witness argued that fees teach responsibility and should not be removed entirely, and urged that restitution to victims remain available.
Sponsor DeBoer said the bill explicitly excludes restitution to victims and that she intends LB 65 to eliminate administrative user fees that act as punitive financial burdens on youth and families. She said she is willing to work with counties on specific fiscal and implementation concerns.
Ending: Committee took testimony and did not vote; backers urged the committee to advance the measure to remove financial barriers to juvenile rehabilitation and record sealing.
