In re Interest of Octavio B., 290 Neb. 589

Melissa R. is the mother of six children removed from her custody in March 2013; children were adjudicated and placed in DHHS custody with case plans targeting reunification.
Over 13 months of out-of-home placement, Melissa had sporadic visitation, missed appointments, a positive methamphetamine urinalysis, and limited compliance with services (drug testing, family support, mental health appointments).
A psychological screening by Dr. Meidlinger concluded Melissa has severe characterological issues and recommended an extended period of stability before returning custody.
At an April 15, 2014 review/permanency hearing, DHHS recommended changing the primary permanency goal to adoption (concurrent goals: reunification with fathers for oldest three; guardianship for youngest three).
The juvenile court changed the primary goal to adoption and stated DHHS need continue services to Melissa only as consistent with the new permanency goals; written orders adopted the case plan but did not reflect the court’s bench statement limiting services.
Melissa appealed, arguing the change was not in the children’s best interests; appellate jurisdiction was contested because appealability depends on whether a parent’s substantial right was affected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Melissa)	Defendant's Argument (State/DHHS)	Held
Whether the April 2014 orders changing the primary permanency objective to adoption were final and appealable	The change effectively ended services aimed at reunification and thus affected her substantial right to raise her children	The order preserved the case plan and left Melissa an opportunity to comply and pursue reunification, so no substantial right was affected	The orders were final and appealable: the court’s bench statement limiting DHHS services meant reunification efforts were effectively ended, affecting a substantial parental right
Whether changing the primary permanency objective to adoption was in the children’s best interests	The State failed to prove the change was in the children’s best interests	The children had been in care 13 months; Melissa had made insufficient progress and expert recommended extended stability before reunification	Held for the State: on de novo review, evidence supported changing the primary permanency objective to adoption as being in the children’s best interests

In re Interest of Mya C. & Sunday C., 286 Neb. 1008, 840 N.W.2d 493 (2013) (discusses finality and appealability of juvenile orders)
In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685, 844 N.W.2d 65 (2014) (appellate review standard in juvenile cases)
In re Interest of Danaisha W. et al., 287 Neb. 27, 840 N.W.2d 533 (2013) (juvenile special proceeding final-order analysis)
In re Interest of Karlie D., 283 Neb. 581, 811 N.W.2d 214 (2012) (juvenile court discretion in placement decisions)
In re Interest of Sarah K., 258 Neb. 52, 601 N.W.2d 780 (1999) (order that merely continues prior terms does not affect substantial rights)
In re Guardianship of Rebecca B. et al., 260 Neb. 922, 621 N.W.2d 289 (2000) (later order continuing prior dispositional terms is not appealable)
In re Interest of Tayla R., 17 Neb. App. 595, 767 N.W.2d 127 (Neb. App. 2009) (changing permanency goal not appealable where services and opportunities for reunification remained)
In re Interest of Diana M. et al., 20 Neb. App. 472, 825 N.W.2d 811 (2013) (changing goal appealable where order ceased reasonable efforts toward reunification)
In re Interest of Samantha C., 287 Neb. 644, 843 N.W.2d 665 (2014) (juvenile code’s focus on child best interests)
In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859, 744 N.W.2d 55 (2008) (children should not be left indefinitely in foster care awaiting parental maturity)