Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

916 20 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

In re Interest of Mya C. and Sun

children under 18 years of ag

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Nyamal M., appell

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed June 25, 2013. No. A-12-811.

1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. Juvenile cases are reviewed de novo on the 

record, and an appellate court is required to reach a conclusion independent of the 

juvenile court’s findings.

2. Judgments: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. When a jurisdictional question 

does not involve a factual dispute, its determination is a matter of law, which 

requires an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent from the decisions 

made by the lower courts.

3. Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. In a juvenile case, as in any 

other appeal, before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty 

of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter 

before it.

4. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. For an appellate court to acquire 

jurisdiction of an appeal, there must be a final order entered by the tribunal from 

which the appeal is taken.

5. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. The three types of final orders which may 

be reviewed on appeal are (1) an order which affects a substantial right and 

which determines the action and prevents a judgment, (2) an order affecting a 

substantial right made during a special proceeding, and (3) an order affecting 

a substantial right made on summary application in an action after judgment 

is rendered.

6. Juvenile Courts: Final Orders. Juvenile court proceedings are special 

proceedings.

7. Final Orders: Words and Phrases. A substantial right is an essential legal right, 

not a mere technical right.

8. Juvenile Courts: Final Orders: Constitutional Law: Parental Rights. The 

substantial right of a parent in juvenile proceedings is a parent’s fundamental, 

constitutional right to raise his or her child.

9. Juvenile Courts: Words and Phrases. The State’s right in juvenile cases 

is derived from its parens patriae interest in the proceedings. This means, in 

essence, that the State has a right to protect the welfare of its resident children.

10. Juvenile Courts: Final Orders: Parental Rights. Whether a substantial right of 

a parent has been affected by an order entered in a juvenile proceeding is dependent upon both the object of the order and the length of time over which the parent’s relationship with the juvenile may reasonably be expected to be disturbed 

by the order.

11. Juvenile Courts: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. In juvenile cases, where 

an order from a juvenile court is already in place and a subsequent order merely 

extends the time for which the previous order is applicable, the subsequent order 

by itself does not affect a substantial right and does not extend the time in which 

the original order may be appealed.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

IN RE INTEREST OF MYA C. & SUNDAY C. 917

Cite as 20 Neb. App. 916

12. ____: ____: ____. A dispositional order which merely continues a previous determination of the juvenile court is not an appealable order.

Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster 

County: Reggie L. Ryder, Judge. Appeal dismis

Matt Catlett for appellant.

Joe Kelly, Lancaster County Attorney, and Daniel J. Zieg 

for appellee.

Inbody, Chief Judge, and Irwin and Moore, Ju

Moore, Judge

Nyamal M., the mother of Mya C. and Sunday C., appeals 

from a dispositional order entered by the separate juvenile 

court of Lancaster County. Nyamal challenges the provision in 

the order that required her to actively pursue either a diploma 

through the GED program or a high school diploma. We conclude that the dispositional order is not an appealable order 

and, therefore, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Nyamal is the mother of Mya, born in December 2006, and 

Sunday, born in January 2008. On September 24, 2010, Mya 

and Sunday were adjudicated to be children as described in 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2008). The reason 

for adjudication was a lack of proper care due to the faults or 

habits of Nyamal. At the time of the adjudication, Nyamal was 

a minor and was herself a ward of the State under a separate 

juvenile court case.

On December 7, 2010, the juvenile court held the initial 

dispositional hearing. Mya and Sunday were placed in the temporary legal custody of the Department of Health and Human 

Services, with placement with Nyamal in the same foster home 

in which Nyamal was placed through her juvenile court case. 

The primary permanency plan was family preservation, with 

reunification as the alternative plan. Among the provisions of 

its order, issued December 10, the court required Nyamal to 

participate in therapy, seek part-time employment to provide 

financial support for her children, and cooperate with family 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

918 20 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

support services. The court also ordered that Nyamal “shall 

continue her education as [sic] Lincoln High School. [She] 

should not switch her education plans without approval from 

the Department of Health and Human Services.” No appeal 

was taken from this order.

The juvenile court has held three dispositional review hearings since the initial dispositional order. For purposes of this 

appeal, the first two review orders, dated June 7, 2011, and 

December 8, 2011, contained provisions that were essentially 

the same as those in the original order. Those provisions 

included a requirement that Nyamal continue her education. 

In its orders, the court specified that Nyamal was required to 

“continue with her education at Bryan Community School.” No 

appeals were taken from those orders.

When the matter came for review hearing on May 24, 

2012, Nyamal had reached her 19th birthday. Nyamal had 

also recently begun attending GED classes. Because there was 

insufficient time to conclude the hearing that day, the hearing 

was continued to July 31. At the time of the continued hearing, Nyamal had obtained temporary full-time employment and 

decided to stop attending GED classes. Nyamal testified that 

she would continue her education later in life, but did not have 

time to pursue it as of the time of the hearing.

At the conclusion of the testimony, the court found the recommendations contained in the guardian ad litem’s report to 

be in the children’s best interests and approved those recommendations. The court also ordered Nyamal to “actively pursue 

a GED or a high school diploma.” The court noted that this 

requirement was relevant to Nyamal’s ability to provide for her 

children. The court stated that even though Nyamal had found 

current employment, it was important that she have a fallback 

plan. Following this hearing, the court issued an order on 

August 9, 2012, from which Nyamal now appeals.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Nyamal assigns that the juvenile court erred when it ordered 

that she actively pursue either a diploma through the GED 

program or a high school diploma as part of its rehabilitative plan.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

IN RE INTEREST OF MYA C. & SUNDAY C. 919

Cite as 20 Neb. App. 916

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Juvenile cases are reviewed de novo on the record, and 

an appellate court is required to reach a conclusion independent of the juvenile court’s findings. In re Interest of Diana M. 

et al., 20 Neb. App. 472, 825 N.W.2d 811 (2013).

[2] When a jurisdictional question does not involve a factual 

dispute, its determination is a matter of law, which requires 

an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent from the 

decisions made by the lower courts. In re Interest of Sarah K., 

258 Neb. 52, 601 N.W.2d 780 (1999).

ANALYSIS

[3,4] In a juvenile case, as in any other appeal, before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an 

appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the 

matter before it. In re Interest of Diana M. et al., supra. For an 

appellate court to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, there must 

be a final order entered by the tribunal from which the appeal 

is taken. Id.

[5,6] The three types of final orders which may be reviewed 

on appeal are (1) an order which affects a substantial right and 

which determines the action and prevents a judgment, (2) an 

order affecting a substantial right made during a special proceeding, and (3) an order affecting a substantial right made on 

summary application in an action after judgment is rendered. 

In re Interest of Karlie D., 283 Neb. 581, 811 N.W.2d 214 

(2012). It has long been held that juvenile court proceedings 

are special proceedings. Id. Therefore, we must determine 

whether the juvenile court’s order affected one of Nyamal’s 

substantial rights.

[7-10] A substantial right is an essential legal right, not a 

mere technical right. In re Interest of Sarah K., supra. The 

substantial right of a parent in juvenile proceedings is a parent’s fundamental, constitutional right to raise his or her child. 

In re Interest of Karlie D., supra. The State’s right in juvenile 

cases is derived from its parens patriae interest in the proceedings. This means, in essence, that the State has a right to 

protect the welfare of its resident children. Id. The Nebraska 

Supreme Court has made it clear that the question of whether 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

920 20 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

a substantial right of a parent has been affected by an order 

entered in a juvenile proceeding is dependent upon both the 

object of the order and the length of time over which the parent’s relationship with the juvenile may reasonably be expected 

to be disturbed by the order. See, In re Interest of R.G., 238 

Neb. 405, 470 N.W.2d 780 (1991), disapproved on other 

grounds, O’Connor v. Kaufman, 255 Neb. 120, 582 N.W.2d 

350 (1998); In re Interest of Tayla R., 17 Neb. App. 595, 767 

N.W.2d 127 (2009).

[11,12] Nevertheless, in juvenile cases, where an order from 

a juvenile court is already in place and a subsequent order 

merely extends the time for which the previous order is applicable, the subsequent order by itself does not affect a substantial right and does not extend the time in which the original 

order may be appealed. In re Interest of Tayla R., supra. In 

other words, a dispositional order which merely continues a 

previous determination of the juvenile court is not an appealable order. See In re Interest of Diana M. et al., supra.

Nyamal argues that the provision of the latest dispositional 

order requiring her to obtain her GED diploma or high school 

diploma affects a substantial right. She urges us to find that 

the rule stated above regarding continuing orders should not 

apply in this case. First, she argues that there is a clear intervening circumstance in this case that breaks the chain of 

continuity between the dispositional orders. Nyamal reached 

her 19th birthday on December 17, 2011, with the result that 

the juvenile court’s jurisdiction in her own docketed case had 

ended. She argues that “‘aging out’” of the system after the 

December 8, 2011, order and before the August 9, 2012, order 

breaks the chain of continuity between the orders. Reply brief 

for appellant at 2. She contends such a break should allow 

her to appeal from the August 9 order. In addition, Nyamal 

argues that the December 8, 2011, and August 9, 2012, orders 

are not the same. She contends that an order to “continue 

with her education at Bryan Community School” is different from being required to “actively pursue a GED or a high 

school diploma.”

We decline Nyamal’s suggestion that we carve out an exception in this case to the rule prohibiting appeals from orders 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

IN RE INTEREST OF MYA C. & SUNDAY C. 921

Cite as 20 Neb. App. 916

which are a continuation of previous determinations of the 

court. The juvenile court has ordered Nyamal to continue 

with her education in all of its dispositional orders. Nyamal 

argues that because she is now an adult, the education provision is not reasonable or material to the court’s jurisdictional 

basis over her children and has no relationship to the goal of 

reunifying her with her children. See In re Interest of T.T., 18 

Neb. App. 176, 779 N.W.2d 602 (2009) (plan for rehabilitation to correct underlying conditions leading to adjudication 

must be reasonably related to objective of reunifying parent 

with children). However, Nyamal was not prohibited from 

making this argument in connection with the previous orders 

prior to her 19th birthday. Although Nyamal’s circumstances 

have arguably changed since the original dispositional order, 

the education provisions have continued and we find no justification or authority for creating an exception to the jurisdictional prohibition.

Additionally, while the subsequent orders changed the location or method of obtaining such education, the orders are 

essentially the same; that is to say, Nyamal was required to 

work toward the equivalent of a high school education. When 

a subsequent order merely repeats the essential terms of a prior 

order, the order is not appealable. See In re Interest of Tayla 

R., 17 Neb. App. 595, 767 N.W.2d 127 (2009). We conclude 

that the August 9, 2012, order is merely a continuation of the 

original December 10, 2010, dispositional order. Therefore, 

any appeal to the court’s education requirement should have 

been made within the applicable period after the December 10 

order. The current appeal is an impermissible collateral attack 

on a prior judgment.

CONCLUSION

The juvenile court order requiring Nyamal to actively pursue 

either a diploma through the GED program or a high school 

diploma was a continuation of the prior orders. Therefore, it is 

not an appealable order. This appeal must be dismissed for lack 

of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismiss