In re Interest of Becka P., 894 N.W.2d 247

Background

Parents Robert and Veronica appealed juvenile adjudications finding their three children neglected and placing custody with DHHS; appeals later affirmed by Court of Appeals.
The juvenile court had earlier ordered speech/language and early childhood development assessments to be performed by an Educational Services Unit (ESU).
Parents signed consent forms but added language disclaiming voluntariness and refused to authorize information sharing; ESU would not proceed without satisfactory consent and DHHS could not sign for wards.
While the adjudication appeals were pending, the county attorney filed affidavits seeking orders to show cause for failure to comply with the assessment orders.
At the show cause hearing the juvenile court declined to find contempt but appointed an attorney as an "educational surrogate" with "all educational rights" for each child, with no stated limitation on scope or duration.
Parents appealed the surrogate-appointment orders; the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether those orders were final and reviewable and whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction to act while appeals were pending.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether orders appointing educational surrogate were final, appealable orders	Parents: appointment was temporary/enforcement action, not affecting substantial right	State: appointment affected substantial right to direct education and thus was final	Court: appointment affected substantial parental right (no temporal limits), so orders were final and appealable
Whether juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to issue enforcement/show-cause orders while adjudication appeals pending	Parents: appeal divested juvenile court of jurisdiction to act on same matter	State: statute permits juvenile court to continue enforcement and supervision while appeal pending	Court: §43-2,106 allows enforcement; juvenile court had jurisdiction to issue and rule on show-cause orders enforcing prior orders
Whether appointment was an improper civil-contempt sanction without purge opportunity	Parents: surrogate was punitive without chance to purge by signing forms	State: court did not find contempt and appointed surrogate to effectuate prior orders	Court: record shows no contempt finding; surrogate appointment was not a contempt sanction, so claim fails
Whether juvenile court may enter permanent dispositional changes while appeal pending	Parents: any permanent change should await appeal resolution	State: enforcement and supervision permitted; limited continuing jurisdiction exists	Court: juvenile court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce prior orders but may not terminate parental rights or enter permanent dispositional orders; facts here permitted surrogate appointment to enforce assessments

Key Cases Cited

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have fundamental liberty interest to direct children's upbringing)
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (parental liberty in child-rearing and education)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (parental rights to direct children's education recognized)
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (framework for assessing asserted fundamental liberties)
In re Interest of Octavio B. et al., 290 Neb. 589 (2015) (definition and analysis of substantial rights in juvenile context)
In re Interest of Cassandra B. & Moira B., 290 Neb. 619 (2015) (orders affecting homeschooling/education can affect substantial rights)
In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859 (2008) (juvenile proceedings as special proceedings for appellate purposes)
In re Interest of Jedidiah P., 267 Neb. 258 (2004) (limits on juvenile court continuing jurisdiction while appeals pending)
In re Interest of Thomas M., 282 Neb. 316 (2011) (juvenile courts are courts of record with contempt authority)