Opinion ID: 1785417
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Sections 43-287.01 to 43-287.06 provide the sole method of reviewing juvenile court dispositional orders falling within the ambit of the expedited appeal process specified therein. [3] Section 43-287.03 provides: A juvenile review panel shall review a disposition of a court when the court makes an order directing the implementation of a plan different from the plan prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services concerning the care, placement, or services to be provided to the juvenile and the department or any other party believes that the court's order is not in the best interests of the juvenile. Under this statute, a two-part test must be applied to determine whether an expedited review is required. [4] First, the order must implement a different plan than that proposed by the department. [5] Second, there must exist a belief that the court-ordered plan is not in the best interests of the juvenile. [6] The issue in this appeal is not which of two alternativesparental home placement recommended by OJS or group home placement ordered by the juvenile courtis in the best interests of the juvenile. Rather, Markice contends that the juvenile court did not follow applicable statutory procedures in effecting what he characterizes as a change in the original disposition ordered by the court. Because the second part of the two-part test clearly is not met, we conclude that this appeal is not subject to the expedited review procedures set forth in §§ 43-287.01 to 43-287.06, and the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.