Court Opinion

ID: 9894855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 14:10:49.012728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:53.633443
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/03/2023 09:10 AM CDT

                                                        - 436 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        315 Nebraska Reports
                                          IN RE INTEREST OF SAYRAH P.
                                                 Cite as 315 Neb. 436

                                   In re Interest of Sayrah P., a child
                                          under 18 years of age.
                                      State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
                                           Sayrah P., appellant.
                                                   ___ N.W.2d ___

                                        Filed November 3, 2023.   No. S-23-071.

                 1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question that does not
                    involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter
                    of law.
                 2. 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.
                 3. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. When an appellate court is without
                    jurisdiction to act, the appeal must be dismissed.
                 4. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. For an appellate court
                    to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, there must be a final order or judg-
                    ment entered by the court from which the appeal is taken; conversely,
                    an appellate court is without jurisdiction to entertain appeals from non-
                    final orders.
                 5. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. A proceeding before a juvenile
                    court is a special proceeding for appellate purposes.
                 6. Final Orders: Words and Phrases. A substantial right is an essential
                    legal right, not a mere technical right.
                 7. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. A substantial right is affected if an
                    order affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as diminishing a
                    claim or defense that was available to the appellant prior to the order
                    from which the appeal is taken.
                 8. ____: ____. It is not enough that a right itself be substantial; the effect
                    on that right must also be substantial.
                                   - 437 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                     IN RE INTEREST OF SAYRAH P.
                            Cite as 315 Neb. 436

 9. Final Orders. Whether the effect of an order is substantial depends
    on whether it affects with finality the rights of the parties in the sub-
    ject matter.
10. Parental Rights: Final Orders: Time. Whether an order affects a sub-
    stantial right of a parent 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.
11. Parental Rights: Final Orders: Time: Appeal and Error. Orders
    which temporarily suspend a parent’s custody, visitation, or education
    rights for a brief period of time do not affect a substantial right and
    therefore are not appealable. A similar analysis has been conducted in
    analyzing a juvenile’s right to stay in the home.

  Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Sarpy County:
Sarah M. Moore, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
  Dennis P. Marks, Deputy Sarpy County Public Defender, for
appellant.
   Gary Brollier, Deputy Sarpy County Attorney, Andrew T.
Erickson, and Lauren S. Evans, Senior Certified Law Student,
for appellee.
  Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
   Heavican, C.J.
                      INTRODUCTION
   Following an altercation with law enforcement, 16-year-
old Sayrah P. was screened by a juvenile probation officer.
The officer found that Sayrah qualified for an alternative to
detention, and Sayrah was sent home with her mother with
an order for electronic monitoring. Sayrah received a hear-
ing with the juvenile court 2 days after the initial screening,
during which electronic monitoring at home was ordered to
continue. Sayrah was noncompliant with her electronic moni-
toring, and a month later, she was ordered to “staff secure”
detention. Sayrah appeals from both the order for electronic
monitoring and the order for staff secure detention. Sayrah
                             - 438 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF SAYRAH P.
                         Cite as 315 Neb. 436

does not appeal from final, appealable orders, and accord-
ingly, we dismiss.
                  FACTUAL BACKGROUND
   On January 1, 2023, there was an altercation at a Sarpy
County hotel between Sayrah and law enforcement. An oncall
probation officer was called to the scene, and following
completion of the “Nebraska Juvenile Detention Screening
Instrument,” the officer found that “[f]urther supervision of
such juvenile is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity
for the protection of such juvenile.” The probation officer
authorized the return of Sayrah to her parent, subject to elec-
tronic monitoring.
   A juvenile petition was filed against Sayrah on January 3,
2023, alleging three law violations, including minor in pos-
session of alcohol, obstructing a police officer, and attempted
third degree assault on an officer. A hearing was held that same
day. A probation officer, other than the one who completed the
January 1 screening instrument, testified at the hearing.
   In her testimony, the probation officer indicated that she
would have filled out the instrument slightly differently. Her
testimony included questioning and discussion about the basis
relied upon to support Sayrah’s alternative to detention—that
“[f]urther supervision of such juvenile is a matter of immedi-
ate and urgent necessity for the protection of such juvenile.”
Specifically, the probation officer noted that she would have
found that further supervision of Sayrah was needed upon
“urgent necessity for [the] protection of the community, safety
of the community.” Ultimately, the testifying officer indicated
that she would defer to the court as to whether electronic moni-
toring or detention was more appropriate for Sayrah.
   Following this hearing, the juvenile court found that elec-
tronic monitoring as an alternative to detention was “appropri-
ate,” but noted that Sayrah was a “physical safety [threat] to
person[s] in the community and that they would be seriously
threatened, but for [Sayrah’s] being on [an] electronic monitor.”
                             - 439 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF SAYRAH P.
                         Cite as 315 Neb. 436

   Arraignment was set for January 30, 2023, but was expe-
dited due to concerns about Sayrah’s behavior, including fail-
ing to charge her electronic monitoring device and removing
the device. After this January 23 arraignment, the court ordered
the juvenile probation officer to “make applications for shel-
ter care due to the need for possible crisis stabilization in the
future as an alternative to detention.” But ultimately, the court
ordered that Sayrah remain on electronic monitoring as an
alternative to detention. The court further ordered that Sayrah
“follow the rules of her placement with her mother, and charge
her electronic monitor.”
   Four days later, on January 27, 2023, Sayrah moved the
court to schedule a hearing “to review whether the use of an
electronic monitor as an alternative to detention is necessary.”
That hearing was held on February 1, after which the court
found that Sayrah had “been non-compliant with court orders,
ha[d] cut her electronic monitor and left the residence without
permission, and was suspended for fighting at school.” The
court further noted in its order that Sayrah had been accepted
to the “Boys Town Shelter Care,” but was ninth on the waiting
list. The court noted that it had
       previously found . . . that the juvenile qualified for an
       alternative to detention, specifically electronic monitor-
       ing, to which the juvenile has failed to comply with. The
       Court finds that her failure to comply with Court Orders,
       specifically an alternative to detention (electronic moni-
       toring) designed to keep her safely within the community,
       coupled with her ongoing aggressive behaviors, places
       the community at risk. The Court finds that the physical
       safety of persons within the community would be seri-
       ously threatened if she were not detained today.
In keeping with those findings, the juvenile court ordered that
Sayrah be sent to the Sarpy County juvenile detention center
until a spot opened for her at the Boys Town Shelter.
   Sayrah appealed.
                             - 440 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF SAYRAH P.
                         Cite as 315 Neb. 436

                  ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
   On appeal, Sayrah assigns the following as errors: (1)
the record is “totally devoid of any facts finding that . . .
Sayrah would come under the court’s jurisdiction based on the
offenses for which she was charged”; (2) the juvenile court
erred by not finding that the original basis for detention—“the
‘protection of the juvenile’”—was not a lawful basis to com-
mence a detention screening; (3) plain error is evidenced by
the court’s allowing the alternative to detention for Sayrah in
the absence of a finding of probable cause that she commit-
ted the alleged law violations; (4) the juvenile court erred in
finding, on January 3, 2023, that Sayrah constituted a physical
safety threat to the community because the record was devoid
of any facts supporting this conclusion; (5) the juvenile court
erred by allowing, on January 3, probation to verbally modify
the authorization for the use of an alternative to detention
in the middle of a detention review hearing; (6) the juvenile
court erred, on February 1, in “ordering Sayrah into staff
secure detention at a hearing to expedite when no evidence
was offered or received, no sworn testimony was taken, and
the Court instead relied on judicial notice which included
another hearing with unsworn testimony and evidence at the
January 23 . . . arraignment hearing”; (7) the juvenile court
erred by converting the hearing to expedite to a detention
hearing without prior notice to Sayrah; (8) the juvenile court
lacked statutory authority to order Sayrah into staff secure
detention at the hearing on the motion to expedite on February
1; (9) the juvenile court erred by finding, on February 1, that
Sayrah’s “‘failure to comply with the court orders, specifically
an alternative to detention (electronic monitoring) designed
to keep her safely within the community, coupled with her
ongoing aggressive behaviors, places the community at risk’”
(emphasis omitted); (10) the juvenile court erred in finding,
on February 1, that the physical safety of persons within the
community would be seriously threatened if Sayrah were
not detained; and (11) the juvenile court should not have
                                - 441 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   315 Nebraska Reports
                   IN RE INTEREST OF SAYRAH P.
                          Cite as 315 Neb. 436

substituted judicial notice for unsworn testimony and evidence
that was neither offered nor received in depriving the juvenile
of her freedom.
                   STANDARD OF REVIEW
   [1] A jurisdictional question that does not involve a factual
dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law. 1
                           ANALYSIS
   [2-4] This case presents a question of appellate jurisdiction.
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. 2 When an appellate court is without jurisdiction to
act, the appeal must be dismissed. 3 For an appellate court to
acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, there must be a final order or
judgment entered by the court from which the appeal is taken;
conversely, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to enter-
tain appeals from nonfinal orders. 4
   Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2022), the
four types of final orders that may be reviewed on appeal are
(1) an order which affects a substantial right in an action and
which in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment,
(2) an order affecting a substantial right made during a special
proceeding, (3) an order affecting a substantial right made on
summary application in an action after a judgment is rendered,
and (4) an order denying a motion for summary judgment when
such motion is based on the assertion of sovereign immunity or
the immunity of a government official. 5
1
  In re Interest of Zachary B., 299 Neb. 187, 907 N.W.2d 311 (2018).
2
  In re Interest of Manuel C. & Mateo S., 314 Neb. 91, 988 N.W.2d 520
  (2023), modified on denial of rehearing 314 Neb. 580, 991 N.W.2d 305;
  In re Interest of Zachary B., supra note 1.
3
  In re Interest of Manuel C. & Mateo S., supra note 2.
4
  Id.
5
  Id.
                                  - 442 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                     IN RE INTEREST OF SAYRAH P.
                            Cite as 315 Neb. 436

   [5] We have previously indicated that a proceeding before a
juvenile court is a special proceeding for appellate purposes. 6
Thus, we focus our analysis on the second category of final
orders set forth in § 25-1902. As provided by that section, to
be final and appealable, an order in a special proceeding must
affect a substantial right. 7
   [6-9] We have defined a “substantial right” in various ways.
We have stated that a substantial right is an essential legal
right, not a mere technical right. 8 We have also explained that a
substantial right is affected if an order affects the subject mat-
ter of the litigation, such as diminishing a claim or defense that
was available to the appellant prior to the order from which the
appeal is taken. 9 We have further held that it is not enough that
a right itself be substantial; the effect on that right must also be
substantial. 10 Moreover, whether the effect of an order is sub-
stantial depends on whether it affects with finality the rights of
the parties in the subject matter. 11
   [10,11] This court has further observed that whether an
order affects a substantial right of a parent 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. 12 We have held that orders which
temporarily suspend a parent’s custody, visitation, or educa-
tion rights for a brief period of time do not affect a substantial
right and therefore are not appealable. 13 A similar analysis
6
   Id.
7
   Id.
 8
   Id.; In re Interest of Zachary B., supra note 1.
 9
   In re Interest of Manuel C. & Mateo S., supra note 2.
10
   In re Interest of Zachary B., supra note 1.
11
   Id.
12
   Id.
13
   Id.
                                 - 443 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                    IN RE INTEREST OF SAYRAH P.
                           Cite as 315 Neb. 436

has been conducted in analyzing a juvenile’s right to stay in
the home. 14
   With these principles in mind, we turn to the finality of the
court’s orders in continuing Sayrah’s electronic monitoring at
her home and later in ordering Sayrah to detention.
   Sayrah’s electronic monitoring began on January 1, 2023,
when she was returned to her mother’s custody, subject to
the wearing of an electronic monitor, pending an adjudication
hearing on the three law violations. While counsel suggests
otherwise, we plainly find this order of electronic monitoring
to be a form of an alternative to detention, and not itself deten-
tion. 15 The juvenile code provided Sayrah with an opportunity
to challenge this monitoring order, both as an initial matter, 16
and subsequently. 17 Thus, this order was subject to review on
an ongoing basis. We cannot conclude that this order affected
a substantial right when Sayrah was allowed to return to her
mother’s home and the condition of Sayrah’s electronic moni-
toring was subject to periodic review, as well as review on
demand. In addition, Sayrah is statutorily entitled to adjudica-
tion of her law violations within 6 months. 18 We cannot con-
clude that this order substantially affected a substantial right,
and thus, it was not final.
   Additionally, we need not address Sayrah’s assertion on
appeal that probation erred when it found that she needed to
be detained for her own protection, rather than for the com-
munity’s protection. But as we noted above, Sayrah was not
detained; instead, she was subjected to an alternative to deten-
tion, and hence, any error in the standard utilized is not impli-
cated here.
14
   See id.
15
   See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-245(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
16
   See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-253(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
17
   See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-256 (Reissue 2016).
18
   See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-271(1)(b) (Reissue 2016).
                             - 444 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
                  IN RE INTEREST OF SAYRAH P.
                         Cite as 315 Neb. 436

   We next turn to Sayrah’s appeal of the order sending her to
the Sarpy County juvenile detention center until a spot opened
for her at the Boys Town Shelter. This order differs from the
order for electronic monitoring in that it envisioned removing
Sayrah from her mother’s custody and placing her in deten-
tion. But we still conclude that the record shows that Sayrah’s
detention was designed to be temporary and was anticipated
to be for a short period of time, lasting only until a spot at
the Boys Town Shelter was available. The record shows that
when the detention order was entered, Sayrah had already
been accepted to the Boys Town Shelter and was ninth on the
waiting list. We cannot conclude that on these facts, a stay
in detention of such a short duration substantially affected a
substantial right. As such, we conclude that this order also was
not final.
                       CONCLUSION
  Sayrah’s appeal is dismissed for lack of a final, appealable
order.
                                         Appeal dismissed.