In re Interest of Becka P.
296 Neb. 365
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Three children (ages 4, 2, 1) were adjudicated as juveniles; custody placed with DHHS and court-ordered assessments (speech/language and early childhood development) by an ESU.
- Parents (Robert and Veronica) signed consent forms but added language disclaiming voluntariness and refused to allow information sharing; ESU declined to proceed.
- Parents appealed the adjudications to the Court of Appeals; appeals were pending when the county attorney filed affidavits and applications for orders to show cause to enforce the assessment orders.
- At a show-cause hearing the juvenile court declined to find contempt but appointed an attorney as an educational surrogate with “all educational rights” and no stated temporal limits.
- Parents timely appealed the orders appointing the educational surrogate; the Nebraska Supreme Court moved the appeals to its docket and affirmed the juvenile court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether orders appointing an educational surrogate were final, appealable orders | Orders were not final; interlocutory while adjudication appeals pending | Appointment affected substantial parental right to direct education, so final | Held final and appealable — affected a substantial right (education) and had no temporal limits |
| Whether juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to issue/orders to show cause while adjudication appeals pending | Appeal divested juvenile court of jurisdiction to act on same matter | Statute preserves county juvenile court enforcement and supervision while appeal pending; contempt/enforcement permissible | Held juvenile court had jurisdiction to enforce prior orders and hear show-cause matters while appeal was pending |
| Whether appointment was an improper civil-contempt sanction without purge opportunity | Appointment was punitive civil contempt; parents should have been able to purge by signing authorizations | Court did not find contempt; appointment was not imposed as a contempt sanction | Held no contempt finding; appointment was not a punitive civil-contempt sanction; argument factually unsupported |
| Whether appointment improperly removed parental education rights permanently | Appointment had no limits and thus permanently disturbed parental rights | Appointment necessary to authorize statutorily-ordered assessments and enforce prior court orders | Held appointment affected substantial parental right because scope/duration were unlimited; appealable but appointment itself was affirmed on jurisdictional and factual grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizes parental fundamental liberty interest in directing child's upbringing)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (discusses protected liberty interests)
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (parental rights to direct education)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (parental liberty in education)
- In re Interest of Octavio B. et al., 290 Neb. 589 (definition of substantial right in juvenile context)
- In re Interest of Cassandra B. & Moira B., 290 Neb. 619 (orders affecting education can affect substantial rights)
- In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859 (juvenile proceedings as special proceedings)
- In re Interest of Jedidiah P., 267 Neb. 258 (limits on juvenile court jurisdiction while appeal pending)
- In re Interest of Thomas M., 282 Neb. 316 (juvenile courts' authority to punish contempt)
- In re Interest of Danaisha W., 287 Neb. 27 (standard for appellate review of juvenile cases)