SUMMARY: An order suspending visits was not final and appealable because it was not a permanent termination of her visitation rights and the mother could regain those rights after a showing that visits were in the children’s best interests.
The children, James, Xyanna and Dominick, were the subject of a 3a petition in February 2010, after the parents stopped complying with voluntary services. The children were removed from the home of the mother, Ashley, in April 2010. Ashley had supervised or monitored visits with the children, which briefly changed to monitored overnight visits. However, after an incident in November 2011, the visits were returned to being supervised. On January 13, 2012, the State filed a motion to terminate parental rights and, a few days later, moved to suspend visits. At the hearing, testimony was submitted that the children were exhibiting seriously disturbed behaviors and that Ashley was having conversations with the older children about the upcoming termination hearing. DHHS requested that a therapist assess the children and make recommendations on the appropriateness of visitation. The court approved the suspension of visits and indicated that therapeutic visits could be allowed when recommended by the therapist. Ashley appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals concluded the order was not final and appealable because it did not affect her substantial rights. It noted that a primary consideration in determining whether a parent’s substantial right was affected was the length of time over which the parent-child relationship would be disturbed. In this case, the Court of Appeals found the suspension was intended to be short-lived and only until therapy could be commenced and the therapist allowed to make recommendations, and not to cause a permanent termination of visits.