In re Interest of Tayla R.

SUMMARY: An order determining a change in the permanency plan to adoption but keeping the same rehabilitation plan for the mother is not a final order. 

Christina R. is the mother of Lea D. (DOB 10/94), Charlie D. (DOB 1/97), Sierra R. (DOB 11/00), and Tayla R. (DOB 9/08). The father is not involved in this case. Lea, Charlie and Sierra were removed from the mother’s care on May 25, 2007, based on the mother’s shoplifting in the presence of the children and subjecting the children to inappropriate discipline resulting in “physical and/or emotional injury or pain.” The children were adjudicated under N.R.S. 43-247(3)(a) and on August 27, 2007, the court found at disposition that the mother was not able to demonstrate appropriate parenting skills and judgment to ensure the children’s safety and ordered the mother to comply with several provisions. At review hearings on January 11, 2008, and May 2, 2008, the court held the permanency plan to be reunification. On April 14, 2008, the court ordered the visitation to be changed from supervised to monitored. On July 18, 2008, DHHS recommended in its court report that the permanency plan be changed to adoption.

Sierra was born on September 16, 2008, and removed from the mother. A petition was filed under 43-247(3)(a) on failure to correct the conditions that led to her siblings’ out-of-home care. At a review and permanency hearing on September 22, 2008, a LMHP testified that the mother was making progress in her parenting skills and she had no concerns about visitation but that consistency was a problem and she had concerns that the mother could keep the young children safe at home but may not be able to properly nurture them. The caseworker testified that a boyfriend had sexually abused one of the children and the mother never responded. She testified that the mother had lack of consistency. She was willing and cooperative but did not always follow through. The mother does have a supportive family willing to help. On October 3, 2008, the court entered an order finding the permanency plan for the older three children to be adoption and an order of continued temporary custody of Tayla with DHHS. The mother appealed both orders.

The Court of Appeals held that in this case the order changing the permanency plan to adoption was not a final order affecting a substantial right because the order still included the rehabilitation plan for the mother, thus implicitly providing the mother with an opportunity for reunification by complying with the plan. The Court of Appeals also held that in the issue of continuing custody of Tayla with DHHS, there was a preponderance of evidence that placement with the mother would be contrary to Tayla’s health, safety or welfare in that supportive services would be necessary if the child were returned home and the mother has not consistently cooperated with services.