846 N.W.2d 681
Neb. Ct. App.2014Background
- Nathaniel (born 2006) was removed from mother Ashley P.'s care in Nov. 2012 and placed in DHHS custody; adjudicated in Feb. 2013 as a child lacking proper parental care due to Ashley’s failure to provide stable housing and address developmental needs.
- Juvenile court ordered rehabilitative services (psychological evaluation, parenting assessment, therapy) and retained temporary custody with DHHS after a dispositional hearing.
- At a June 17, 2013 review hearing, DHHS and guardian ad litem reported Ashley’s poor participation and recommended suspension of her educational decision-making rights; the court announced it would “suspend [Ashley’s] educational rights, at least on a temporary basis.”
- The written June 18, 2013 order suspended Ashley’s educational rights and authorized DHHS to appoint a surrogate (e.g., foster parent) to exercise those rights; Nathaniel remained in DHHS temporary custody.
- Ashley timely appealed the suspension, arguing the court erred in suspending her educational decision-making rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the June 18, 2013 order suspending Ashley’s educational decision rights is a final, appealable order | Ashley argued the suspension was an appealable order affecting her parental right to direct her child’s education | State argued the suspension was temporary, did not affect a substantial right, and thus the appellate court lacked jurisdiction | The court held the order was temporary, did not affect a substantial right, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in directing children’s upbringing)
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (parental rights to direct education are protected)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (liberty includes parental control over child’s education)
- In re Interest of Danaisha W. et al., 287 Neb. 27 (2013) (temporary suspensions of custody/visitation do not affect a substantial right and are not appealable)
- Steven S. v. Mary S., 277 Neb. 124 (2009) (order suspending visitation until further order was not a final appealable order)
- In re Interest of T.T., 18 Neb. App. 176 (2009) (temporary prohibitions on parental rights, including speech regarding a child’s medical condition, may be nonappealable when temporary)
- In re Interest of Clifford M. et al., 258 Neb. 800 (2000) (parent may regain suspended visitation upon showing it is in child’s best interests)