In re B.A.B.

In 1996 B.A.B. began attending the first grade in elementary school. However, by the middle of September, B.A.B. had already missed several school days, and by November, she had to return to kindergarten due to her academic struggles. A school official filed a child-in-need-of-protection-or-services petition, which asserted that B.A.B. was without needed education due to the inability or unwillingness of a parent to provide educational care and that B.A.B. was habitually truant. Habitual truancy for a child who was less than 16 years old required unexcused absences for seven school days. A hearing on adjudication was held. B.A.B.’s mother (Mother) (defendant) testified that some of B.A.B.’s absences were mainly for medical reasons such as earaches, asthma, and lice. However, some of B.A.B.’s absences were due to oversleeping. The school’s family-services coordinator testified that on at least five days when B.A.B. did not arrive at school, she went to B.A.B.’s home and picked her up. A parenting aide had also picked B.A.B. up often when she missed the school bus. B.A.B. was adjudicated as a child who needed protection or services because she lacked needed education due to Mother being unable or not willing to offer educational care to B.A.B. A district court judge ordered Mother to make sure B.A.B. attended school regularly, only missed school for medical reasons as verified by a doctor’s note, and attended medical appointments only after school except in case of emergency. Mother appealed, asserting that a finding of educational neglect was not proper if a child did not have seven unexcused absences as was required to be deemed habitually truant.