In re Interest of A.A., 968 N.W.2d 607

B.C., a minor, was removed from mother Stacy J.’s home after a child-endangerment petition; Joshua C. is B.C.’s biological father and had an established parental relationship.
The juvenile court initially denied Joshua’s motion for temporary placement based on concerns about his health and the absence of a transition plan.
The Nebraska Supreme Court (A.A. I) held that Joshua was denied due process when the court found him unfit without notice, and remanded for the juvenile court to develop an appropriate transition plan for Joshua’s temporary physical custody.
DHHS proposed a transition plan for placement with Joshua, but Joshua refused to participate in or permit typical DHHS inquiries and resisted the plan.
At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court found Stacy had completed reunification services, approved a transition plan for returning B.C. to Stacy, denied Joshua’s motions for custody/placement for lack of an agreed transition plan, and ordered physical placement with Stacy subject to transition conditions.
Joshua appealed only on the ground that placing B.C. with Stacy exceeded the Supreme Court’s mandate; the Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ordering placement of B.C. with Stacy exceeded this court’s mandate to place B.C. with Joshua after remand	Joshua: mandate required temporary physical placement with me (Joshua) following remand	State/DHHS/Stacy: mandate required a transition plan for temporary placement but did not bar reunification with Stacy based on updated facts and juvenile court jurisdiction	Court: Placement with Stacy under a transition plan was consistent with the mandate; juvenile court acted within its continuing jurisdiction and could proceed with reunification when supported by updated facts

In re Interest of A.A. et al., 307 Neb. 817, 951 N.W.2d 144 (Neb. 2020) (held due process violation and remanded for development of transition plan for father)
In re Interest of A.A. et al., 308 Neb. 749, 957 N.W.2d 138 (Neb. 2021) (post-remand proceedings; attorney fees denied)
State v. Harris, 307 Neb. 237, 948 N.W.2d 736 (Neb. 2020) (mandate construction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup, 305 Neb. 493, 941 N.W.2d 145 (Neb. 2020) (lower court must follow specific remand instructions)
In re Interest of Jedidiah P., 267 Neb. 258, 673 N.W.2d 553 (Neb. 2004) (juvenile court retains continuing jurisdiction during appeal)
In re Interest of Ethan M., 15 Neb. App. 148, 723 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006) (temporary placement with noncustodial parent should not unduly hinder reunification)