In re Interest of Joshua M. et. al

Caselaw Number
S-94-1239, S-94-1240, S-95-761, S-95-762, 251 Neb. 614
Filed On


SUMMARY: If a parent files a timely appeal to a final order, the juvenile court does not have jurisdiction to consider the termination of the parent’s parental rights while the appeal is pending. However, an order that merely extends prior orders is not a final, appealable order. Evidence that a mother repeatedly defied an order to refrain from contacting a man who was convicted of sexually assaulting one of her children was sufficient to terminate her parental rights of two of her children. 

On March 26, 1993, the state filed a petition as to Gloria (DOB 5/5/1985), Tabitha (DOB 8/13/1987), T.J. (DOB 2/21/1990), and Amanda (DOB 10/29/1991). The children were adjudicated on August 23, 1993. The juvenile court ordered Lona to refrain from contact with the children’s father, Thomas, because Thomas was convicted of sexually assaulting two children, including Gloria. T.J. and Amanda returned to Lona’s care following an October 19, 1994 review hearing. On December 6, 1994, the county attorney filed a motion for immediate temporary custody of T.J. and Amanda because Lona had knowingly and willingly violated the court’s order to refrain from contact with Thomas. Lona admitted in the December 15, 1994 detention hearing that she maintained contact with Thomas and permitted Thomas to contact the children. The State filed a petition the same day regarding Joshua (DOB 9/6/1993) and filed a motion to terminate Lona’s parental rights to Gloria, Tabitha, T.J., and Amanda. Lona timely appealed the court’s December 16 orders placing all five of her children in temporary custody. In spite of the appeals, the juvenile court adjudicated Joshua and terminated Lona’s parental rights to the other four children on June 28, 1995. Lona also timely appealed those orders.

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the detention orders placing Joshua, T.J., and Amanda in temporary custody. There was evidence of repeated and unrelenting violations of court orders that forbade Lona from maintaining sexual contact with a person convicted of sexually assaulting her daughter. The juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to terminate Lona’s parental rights of Joshua until resolution of her appeal from the original detention order. The December 16 detention order was a final, appealable order, and once an appeal from the order was set forth, the juvenile court lost jurisdiction to address the issues of terminating Lona’s parental rights while the appeal was pending. Therefore, the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to terminate Lona’s parental rights as to T.J. and Amanda. However, the December 16 order was not dispositional in nature as to Gloria and Tabitha because the order merely extended the orders already in place and thus was not a final, appealable order. The juvenile court did have jurisdiction to consider the termination of Lona’s parental rights as to Gloria and Tabitha. The State was not required to prove that Lona willfully violated the terms of the case plan, and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in forbidding Lona as part of the rehabilitation plan to maintain an association with a person convicted of sexually assaulting one of her children. The evidence was sufficient to show that Lona failed to accomplish a condition of her rehabilitation plan, and that termination was in Gloria and Tabitha’s best interest.