State v. Angaline L. (In re Interest of Mercedes L.), 923 N.W.2d 751

Juvenile-court orders dated November 13, 2017, changed the permanency objective for six children from reunification to guardianship.
Angaline filed notices of appeal on December 11, 2017 (28 days after Nov. 13 orders), one day before the county court entered December 12, 2017 orders establishing guardianships and appointing a guardian for each child.
The majority treated the November 13 orders as final, appealable orders and addressed the merits; Judge Pirtle dissents in part, questioning finality and jurisdiction.
If the Nov. 13 orders were final, the December 12 hearing and orders would have been void because appeals divested the juvenile court of jurisdiction as of Dec. 11.
If Nov. 13 orders were not final, acts by the court between the notice of appeal and dismissal of the appeal are not necessarily void; Angaline could have appealed the Dec. 12 orders (filed Dec. 13–Jan. 11 window) had she waited.
The dissent highlights that the Nov. 13 orders lack explicit language ceasing reunification efforts or DHHS services, raising doubt whether they affected a substantial right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nov. 13, 2017 orders were final, appealable	Nov. 13 change to guardianship is final and appealable	Nov. 13 orders were interlocutory; did not terminate services or foreclose reunification	Majority: treated them as final; dissent: would find them nonfinal and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Whether Dec. 12 orders can be used to determine finality of Nov. 13 orders	Argues Dec. 12 terms show permanency and thus support Nov. 13 finality	Dec. 12 orders entered after notices; cannot control jurisdictional question	Court: Dec. 12 orders do not control finality; if Nov. 13 were final, Dec. 12 would be void
Whether Nov. 13 orders affected a substantial right of Angaline	A change in permanency objective substantially affects parental rights	Nov. 13 lacked explicit cessation of services/rehabilitation language, so substantial right not necessarily affected	Dissent: Nov. 13 alone likely did not affect substantial right; not final
Proper remedy if Nov. 13 not final	Proceed on appeals of guardianship merits	Dismiss appeals for lack of jurisdiction or allow appeal of later orders if timely filed	Dissent: would dismiss appeals for lack of jurisdiction (must have appealed Dec. 12 orders separately)

Anderson v. Finkle, 296 Neb. 797, 896 N.W.2d 606 (2017) (notice of appeal from non-appealable order does not render interval acts void)
In re Guardianship of Sophia M., 271 Neb. 133, 710 N.W.2d 312 (2006) (appeal from nonappealable order does not make subsequent actions void)
In re Interest of Tayla R., 17 Neb. App. 595, 767 N.W.2d 127 (2009) (modifications to permanency objectives present close appealability questions)
In re Interest of Octavio B. et al., 290 Neb. 589, 861 N.W.2d 415 (2015) (court statements can effectively eliminate reunification opportunity and render order appealable)
In re Interest of Kenneth B. et al., 25 Neb. App. 578, 909 N.W.2d 658 (2018) (qualifying language and continued services showed order was not final)
In re Interest of Diana M. et al., 20 Neb. App. 472, 825 N.W.2d 811 (2013) (order coupled with ceasing reasonable efforts was appealable)
In re Interest of Ezra C., 25 Neb. App. 588, 910 N.W.2d 810 (2018) (orders lacking adjudicative effect are not final)
In re Interest of Jassenia H., 291 Neb. 107, 864 N.W.2d 242 (2015) (orders that are not dispositive do not constitute final orders)