In re Guardianship of Brydon P., 286 Neb. 661

Brydon P., born 1999; Brydon’s mother Nicole L. died October 9, 2011; Silvija P., Brydon’s maternal grandmother, petitioned for emergency guardianship and later permanent guardianship.
Eric L., Brydon’s adjudicated father who paid child support since 2000, intervened in the guardianship proceeding seeking visitation and to contest guardianship.
The court allowed Eric to intervene, appointed a guardian ad litem and therapist, and temporarily delayed formal guardianship disposition.
In July 2012 the court appointed Silvija as Brydon’s permanent guardian but reserved ruling on Silvija’s request for in loco parentis and on fees.
The court concluded guardianship was in Brydon’s best interests, awarded attorney fees to Silvija’s attorney, and split the fees between Brydon’s estate and Eric, relying on Donley to justify attorney-fee awards against the ward’s estate.
On appeal, Eric challenges the fee award against him; Silvija argues for permanent in loco parentis; the court remanded for fee-amount adjustments and affirmed denial of permanent in loco parentis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can a guardianship court award petitioner’s attorney fees against another party?	Eric argues no statutory or recognized procedure authorizes fees against a other party.	Silvija argues § 25-824, § 30-2620.01, and related statutes authorize or justify some fee shifting.	The court erred to the extent it assessed petitioner’s fees against Eric; no statute or accepted practice supports fee-shifting to another party in a minor guardianship.
Can the court confer permanent in loco parentis status in this guardianship case?	Eric did not seek custody and the guardianship was resolved without a custody dispute; in loco parentis should be possible in some contexts.	Silvija sought permanent in loco parentis as a guardian seeking broader parental rights.	The court correctly denied permanent in loco parentis status; the doctrine is transitory and not applicable to confer permanent parental rights here.
How should attorney-fee awards be handled on remand and who bears the costs?	Eric contends the fee award against him was improper and should be remanded for proper allocation.	Silvija argues the award was proper under Donley and related statutes; the precise allocation should be reviewed.	Remand to determine whether any or all of the incorrectly assessed fees should be borne by Brydon’s estate or otherwise adjusted; court should apply Donley factors.

In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Donley, 262 Neb. 282 (2001) (fee-shifting for guardianship petitions against ward’s estate; supports costs against ward’s estate)
In re Guardianship of Bremer, 209 Neb. 267 (1981) (guardian precedent for fees in guardianship context; distinguishable but cited for fiduciary defense fees)
Latham v. Schwerdtfeger, 282 Neb. 121 (2011) (in loco parentis as standing in custody disputes; not permanent parental status here)
Destiny S. v. Destiny S., 263 Neb. 255 (2002) (standing principles in guardianship/custody context)
Durre v. Wilkinson Development, 285 Neb. 880 (2013) (statutory construction/acquiescence principle governing legislative intent)
In re Guardianship of Bremer, 209 Neb. 267 (1981) (see above; cited for guardianship-fee context)