In re Interest of Kamille C. & Kamiya C.
302 Neb. 226
| Neb. | 2019Background
- Mother Nateesha B. admitted allegations under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) after a drug-related incident; two children (Kamille and Kamiya) were placed with their biological father, Samuel C., during juvenile proceedings.
- Juvenile court entered dispositional orders placing the children with Samuel; mother worked a reunification plan and later had unsupervised visitation as DHHS reported her home safe and drug free.
- Samuel moved for a “bridge order” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-246.02 to transfer custody/visitation jurisdiction to district court and close the juvenile case as to these two children.
- The juvenile court entered a bridge order granting legal and physical custody to Samuel and a parenting plan giving the mother regular visitation; the mother appealed the bridge order.
- The Supreme Court considered whether a bridge order is a final, appealable order under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 and whether immediate appellate jurisdiction existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nateesha) | Defendant's Argument (Samuel/DHHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bridge order is a final, appealable order | Bridge order changed custody and affected mother’s substantial parental rights, so appeal should be permitted | Bridge order is temporary, transfers jurisdiction to district court, and does not finally resolve custody — not appealable | Bridge order is not final for § 25-1902 purposes; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether bridge order was appropriate given DHHS’s concession that children could return to mother | Mother: DHHS’s concession made bridge order improper | Samuel/DHHS: juvenile court found placement with Samuel was in children’s best interests and criteria for bridge order met | Court did not reach merits due to lack of appellate jurisdiction over bridge order |
| Whether juvenile court’s process violated due process (judge acting as advocate / hearsay evidence) | Mother: judge elicited evidence and admitted Foster Care Review Board report over hearsay objection | Samuel/DHHS: procedural objections are moot if order is nonfinal | Procedural due process/hearsay claims not reached on merits because appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Effect on parental preference and reunification requirements | Mother: bridge order undermines parental preference and reunification efforts | Samuel/DHHS: bridge order preserves status quo and allows district court de novo review if challenged | Court: bridge order preserves status quo temporarily; parental rights not irretrievably lost because district court may redecide custody de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- Tilson v. Tilson, 299 Neb. 64, 907 N.W.2d 31 (Neb. 2018) (discusses finality and substantial right analysis)
- In re Interest of Octavio B. et al., 290 Neb. 589, 861 N.W.2d 415 (Neb. 2015) (appellate jurisdiction requires final order)
- In re Interest of Sandrino T., 295 Neb. 270, 888 N.W.2d 371 (Neb. 2016) (transfer orders from juvenile court held nonfinal)
- Huskey v. Huskey, 289 Neb. 439, 855 N.W.2d 377 (Neb. 2014) (temporary custody during military deployment not final)
- In re Interest of Karlie D., 283 Neb. 581, 811 N.W.2d 214 (Neb. 2012) (analysis of orders affecting parental rights and finality)