In re Interest of Cassandra B. & Moira B.
290 Neb. 619
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Angel B. is mother of Cassandra (born 1998) and Moira (born 2008); both adjudicated juveniles after incidents of inappropriate discipline by Angel.
- DHHS obtained temporary custody in 2012 after Cassandra was forced to sleep in a tent and subjected to physical restraint and water spraying; court found Angel’s discipline placed both children at risk.
- Cassandra was placed outside the home; Moira remained physically with Angel but legal custody was given to DHHS; case plan limited Angel’s use of physical discipline and required therapy and evaluation.
- DHHS later reported further concerns: Angel locked Moira in her bedroom, had inconsistent homeschooling history with Cassandra, and resisted providing a homeschooling plan; DHHS recommended Moira remain in traditional school.
- On July 9, 2014, the juvenile court ordered Moira continue in an educational program approved by DHHS and expressly prohibited Angel from homeschooling Moira pending further order; Angel appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Angel) | Defendant's Argument (State/DHHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the July 9, 2014 order prohibiting homeschooling was a final, appealable order | Order was temporary or not a final disturbance of parental rights and thus not appealable | Order prohibited a fundamental parental right for a substantial period and was final | The order was final and appealable because it affected Angel’s constitutional right to direct education for an extended period (until further order/review ~6 months) |
| Whether the juvenile court properly restricted Angel from homeschooling Moira | Homeschooling choice is a fundamental parental liberty and the adjudication was unrelated to Moira’s education | Juvenile court can impose conditions related to parental rehabilitation and child welfare; legal custody to DHHS includes educational decisions | Court properly exercised discretion: restriction tied to adjudication-related concerns (parental discipline, isolation risk) and was in Moira’s best interests |
| Whether the juvenile court exceeded its authority by delegating educational placement to DHHS | Prohibition unlawfully interferes with parental rights to direct education | Juvenile code grants the court power to set conditions to eliminate causes of adjudication and legal custody confers educational decision authority to DHHS | The court’s order fell within statutory authority to impose conditions on custody/rehabilitation and to protect the child’s welfare |
| Whether record supported factual basis for denying homeschooling | Angel did not present evidence of a workable homeschool plan; court lacked justification | DHHS testimony and prior incidents (locking Moira, prior discipline of Cassandra) supported concerns | The record supported the court’s factual findings and the prohibition was reasonably related to remediation and child safety |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental right to direct child’s upbringing is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (parents have substantive due process liberty interest in directing child’s education)
- In re Interest of Danaisha W., 287 Neb. 27 (temporary restrictions that disturb rights only briefly are not appealable)
- In re Interest of Karlie D., 283 Neb. 581 (court’s power to change conditions of custody does not by itself determine finality)
- In re Guardianship of Sophia M., 271 Neb. 133 (short-duration interim restrictions may be nonappealable)
- In re Interest of Nathaniel P., 22 Neb. App. 46 (suspension of educational right construed as temporary where rehabilitative steps could promptly restore the right)