SUMMARY: An order from the court removing reunification as a concurrent goal with adoption but otherwise not changing the terms of the previously adopted case plan is not a final order that can be appealed.
Serenity G., DOB 6/06, Christopher G., Jr., DOB 4/07, and Averie G., DOB 2/09, are the children of parents, Christopher and Jerah. On December 9, 2011, Serenity and Averie were filed on as children within the meaning of N.R.S. 43-247(3)(a) due to the parents’ domestic violence, and a petition was filed as to Christopher Jr. on January 19, 2012, after his guardian died. The parents have a history of domestic violence, substance abuse including methamphetamine, and incarceration. On April 24, 2012, the children were adjudicated as to Christopher, and after a dispositional hearing on May 22, 2012, the county court adopted the DHHS case plan but added a concurrent goal of reunification to the adoption goal. It also allowed visitation at the discretion of the children’s therapist. A Permanency Hearing was held on August 13, 2012, where a psychological evaluation was submitted which found Christopher to be a “poor fit” for the children’s needs and recommended at least one or two years of stability before allowing unsupervised visits. After the hearing, the court ordered that the permanency goal be changed from a concurrent goal of reunification and adoption to a goal of adoption only. The remainder of the case plan adopted by the court was the same as the May 2012 case plan. Christopher appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because the order was not final and appealable. In looking at whether the order affected a substantial right, the Court of Appeals looked at the whether the change in permanency plan affected parental rights. The Court of Appeals distinguished the finding in In re Interest of Diana M., 20 Neb. App. 472, 825 N.W.2d 811 (2013), that a change in permanency goal was final and appealable by noting that the Diana court also ceased all reasonable efforts services towards reunification. Instead, the Court of Appeals found this case to be more similar to In re Interest of Tayla R., 17 Neb. App. 595, 767 N.W.2d 127 (2009), where the court changed the permanency goal from reunification to adoption but otherwise kept the same rehabilitation plan with the mother in effect. In this situation, the court changed the concurrent permanency goals of adoption and reunification to one solely of adoption but did not otherwise change the terms of visitation or other parts of the case plan. Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that the order did not affect the parent’s substantial rights and was not final and appealable.