In re Interest of Darryn C., 295 Neb. 358

Darryn, a child adjudicated as lacking proper parental care based on parents’ substance abuse/domestic violence, was placed in DHHS custody in 2013 and remained in out-of-home placement for years.
Sharon (paternal grandmother) initially helped place Darryn with her sister Judi and later sought custody after parents relinquished their rights; Sharon moved to Omaha and sought placement in late 2015.
DHHS, the guardian ad litem (GAL), and the case manager raised concerns about Darryn’s emotional/behavioral issues (notably violent “superhero” play) and prior unsupervised contact with parents during visits involving Sharon.
At the December 1–2, 2015 hearing Sharon presented parental relinquishments and testimony from herself, her husband Randall, and Darryn’s therapist; the therapist favored Darryn’s current placement with Judi but did not say Sharon was unfit.
The juvenile court overruled Sharon’s motion for custody but ordered DHHS and Nebraska Families Collaborative to perform home studies of Sharon and Randall’s homes, obtain Judi’s medical records, and set a near-term “Home Study Check” hearing.
Sharon appealed the December 2, 2015 order; the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether the order was a final, appealable order and whether it affected a substantial right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the December 2, 2015 order is a final, appealable order	Sharon: overruling custody motion is final because parents relinquished rights and gave Sharon priority under parental preference doctrine	State/DHHS: order expressly continued consideration (home studies, medical records, check hearing) so custody was not finally disposed	Not final; appellate court lacks jurisdiction and appeal dismissed
Whether Sharon’s ability to obtain custody was clearly eliminated by the order	Sharon: the ruling terminated her substantive right to obtain custody after parental relinquishment	Opposing parties: the order preserves opportunity (home studies and further hearing) so her ability to gain custody remains	Court: ability not clearly eliminated; substantial right not affected

Steven S. v. Mary S., 277 Neb. 124 (discusses standards for finality and substantial rights in juvenile proceedings)
In re Interest of Octavio B. et al., 290 Neb. 589 (explains when juvenile orders are final and appealable)
In re Interest of Enyce J. & Eternity M., 291 Neb. 965 (juvenile appeals reviewed de novo and jurisdictional considerations)
In re Interest of Tayla R., 17 Neb. App. 595 (Court of Appeals concluded permanency-order language preserved reunification opportunity; not final)
In re Interest of Sarah K., 258 Neb. 52 (related precedent on appellate jurisdiction in juvenile cases)