In re Interest of Becka P.
296 Neb. 365
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Robert and Veronica are parents of three young children adjudicated neglected; custody placed with DHHS and the court ordered speech/language and early childhood development assessments to be conducted by an Educational Services Unit (ESU).
- Parents appealed the adjudications to the Nebraska Court of Appeals; those appeals were pending when enforcement issues arose.
- The ESU would not proceed because parents signed consent forms with caveats and refused information releases; DHHS could not sign the forms under applicable regulations.
- The county attorney filed affidavits and applications for orders to show cause seeking enforcement of the assessment orders; a consolidated show-cause hearing was held while the adjudication appeals were pending.
- 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 limitations on duration or scope.
- Parents appealed the surrogate-appointment orders, arguing the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction while appeals were pending and that the appointment was an improper (and non-purgable) civil-contempt sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robert & Veronica) | Defendant's Argument (State/DHHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether orders appointing an educational surrogate were final, appealable orders | Appointment affected parents' rights and thus was appealable | Orders were part of ongoing juvenile supervision and not appealable | Held appealable: surrogate appointment affected a substantial parental right to direct education and was not temporary |
| Whether juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to hear enforcement (show-cause) while adjudication appeals were pending | Appeal divested juvenile court of jurisdiction to act on same matter | Statute preserves juvenile court authority to continue supervision and to enforce orders pending appeal | Held juvenile court retained jurisdiction to issue and rule on orders to show cause enforcing prior orders while appeals were pending |
| Whether appointment was an improper civil-contempt sanction without purge opportunity | Appointment functioned as a punitive, non-purgable sanction; parents were denied purge chance | Court did not find contempt and therefore did not impose a contempt sanction; appointment enforced prior orders | Held no contempt finding; surrogate appointment was not a contempt sanction and error claim rejected |
| Whether appointment without temporal/scope limits converted it into a permanent dispositional order beyond court's power on appeal | Parents argued unlimited appointment improperly disturbed rights during appeal | State argued appointment was necessary to effect court-ordered assessments and enforcement power remained | Held appointment had no limitations and thus materially affected a substantial right, making it final and reviewable; but court had authority to appoint for enforcement purposes while appeal pending |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizes parents' fundamental liberty interest to direct children’s upbringing and education)
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (parental right to direct child's education is protected liberty interest)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (constitutional protection of parental authority in education)
- In re Interest of Octavio B. et al., 290 Neb. 589 (discusses what constitutes a substantial right in juvenile proceedings)
- In re Interest of Cassandra B. & Moira B., 290 Neb. 619 (parental education-rights orders can affect substantial rights)
- In re Interest of Danaisha W. et al., 287 Neb. 27 (juvenile appeals reviewed de novo; appellate jurisdiction principles)
- In re Interest of Jedidiah P., 267 Neb. 258 (limits on juvenile court authority while appeals pending)
- In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859 (juvenile proceedings are special proceedings for appellate purposes)