In re Interest of Darrion T., A-16-400

Patrick T., biological father of 4-year-old Darrion, had supervised monthly visits per an earlier order; child was adjudicated juvenile and placed with DHHS custody after abuse/neglect allegations against the mother’s boyfriend.
Therapist reported Darrion exhibited dissociative behaviors and fear of Patrick; recommended therapeutic visits before any increase in contact.
At hearings Patrick sought more frequent visitation and offered contradictory testimony that Darrion appeared happy during visits; letters from the therapist were admitted over Patrick’s objections.
The juvenile court terminated paternal-grandmother-supervised weekend visits and limited Patrick to therapeutic visits “until (the therapist) recommends that visits should occur otherwise,” declining to specify frequency or number.
Patrick appealed, arguing unlawful delegation of visitation scheduling to the therapist, restriction of rebuttal evidence, and a placement issue (the latter conceded moot). The appellate court reviewed de novo.

Issue	Patrick’s Argument	State/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court improperly delegated visitation timing/frequency to child’s therapist	Court should set a specific visitation schedule; not leave amount/time to therapist	Therapist’s recommendation appropriate; therapeutic visits warranted	Court erred: delegation to therapist was improper; remanded to set a specific schedule for therapeutic visits
Whether court violated due process by limiting rebuttal evidence to affidavits	Denial of ability to call/cross-examine therapist; restriction deprived him of due process	Record shows no categorical bar; continuation allowed responsive evidence	No violation: limitation was only to responsive evidence and did not preclude calling the therapist
Whether order was appealable (jurisdiction)	(Implicit) appealable because substantial right affected	State: order not final; temporary/extension; no substantial right affected	Appellate court has jurisdiction: order modified prior visitation, was indeterminate in duration, and affected substantial parental right
Placement change to paternal grandmother (moot)	Requested change	State: placement later returned to mother	Moot — not addressed further

Deacon v. Deacon, 207 Neb. 193 (order delegating visitation timing to psychologist was an abuse of discretion)
In Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349 (juvenile court cannot require parent to follow counselor’s directions as condition of visitation)
In re Teela H., 3 Neb. App. 604 (order making visitation subject to psychiatrist’s recommendation improperly delegated judicial authority)
In re Octavio B., 290 Neb. 589 (appealability in juvenile cases requires an order affecting a substantial parental right)
In re Cassandra B. & Moira B., 290 Neb. 619 (parent’s fundamental right to raise child is a substantial right in juvenile proceedings)