In re Interest of Courtney S., et al

Caselaw Number
A-06-546
Filed On


SUMMARY: “To challenge a dispositional order entered by the juvenile court on the basis of an assertion that the permanency objection differs from the case plan proposed by DHHS and that such a ruling and plan so adopted is not the in the best interests of the children, [the parent] must present her appeal to a juvenile review panel as the exclusive forum to review a dispositional order which differs from a case plan recommended by DHHS.”

The Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal by a mother who was challenging a dispositional order by the juvenile court because she failed to first appeal to a juvenile review panel as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-287.01 through 43-287.06.  The Nebraska Statutes require review by a juvenile review panel before an appeal can be brought before the Court of Appeals.

“To determine if a matter falls within the expedited juvenile review panel process, a two-part analysis applies.  First, the contested dispositional order must implement a different plan for the juvenile than the plan proposed by DHHS.  Second, the appealing party must have a belief that the court-ordered plan is not in the best interests of the juvenile.”

In this case, DHHS recommended that the “primary permanency objective should be reunification, with a concurrent plan for adoption,” the juvenile court held that adoption should be the sole permanency objective.  Further, the mother believed that the court ordered plan was not in her children’s best interests because she believed there was insufficient evidence presented to the juvenile court to justify deviating from DHHS’s proposed plan.

Thus, this case met the two prong test, and since the mother failed to first appeal to the juvenile review panel, her appeal before the Nebraska Court of Appeals was dismissed.