SUMMARY: Subsequent disposition orders are not appealable where they are a continuation of the provisions of previous orders, even if the parent’s circumstances have changed.
Mya, DOB 12/06, and Sunday, DOB 1/08, are the children of Nyamal. A 3a petition was filed on September 24, 2010. At the time, Nyamal was under the court’s jurisdiction on a separate juvenile case, and the children were placed with Nyamal in her foster care home. After adjudication, disposition was held on December 7, 2010, where the court ordered Nyamal to, among other things, continue her education and prohibited her from changing education plans without approval from DHHS. No appeal was made. Three more dispositional hearings were held, the first two having the same education language as the first. At the third review hearing on May 24, 2012, Nyamal had reached the age of majority and was taking GED classes but by the time of the continued hearing on July 31 had decided to quit school and work full-time. After the hearing, the court ordered Nyamal to “actively pursue a GED or a high school diploma.” Nyamal appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed on the basis of being a non-appealable order. It noted that for the order to affect a substantial right in order to be appealable, it must do more than extend the time for which the previous order is applicable. In this case, the court’s earlier orders requiring Nyamal to continue her education and the latest order requiring her to pursue a GED or diploma are essentially the same. A parent’s change in circumstances, such as turning 19, is not relevant to the jurisdictional question of whether the order is appealable. Any appeal to the educational provision of the order should have been made after the original dispositional order.