In re Guardianship of Nicholas H., 309 Neb. 1

Background

Nicholas H., an adult with severe mental illness, was found incapacitated; his parents served as temporary coguardians until 2016 when the Office of Public Guardian (OPG) was appointed under the Public Guardianship Act.
The OPG’s associate public guardian, Stacy Rotherham, was repeatedly threatened and harassed by Nicholas (including a protection order and criminal charges), rendering her unable to perform required monthly contacts.
In October 2019 the OPG moved to be discharged under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-4117, alleging its services were no longer necessary because Nicholas’ parents were the more appropriate successor guardians.
Nicholas’ parents filed a verified objection and stated they were unwilling to serve (advanced age, poor health, out-of-state residence, prior threats); the hearing confirmed Nicholas remained incapacitated and in need of a full guardianship.
The county court discharged the OPG and named the parents successor coguardians; the parents never accepted appointment and timely appealed the discharge order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do Nicholas’ parents have standing to appeal the county court order?	Parents argued they can appeal because they were interested persons, objected below, and the order directly affected them.	OPG argued parents lacked standing because they were not directly affected or parties.	Court: Parents have standing under probate appeal statute (§ 30-1601) because they were interested persons who objected and were directly affected.
Was it error to appoint parents successor guardians over their objection?	Parents argued a person unwilling to serve cannot be compelled to accept guardianship and that appointment was reversible error.	OPG pointed to the court’s authority to appoint successor guardians under guardianship procedures.	Court: Not reversible error — appointment was contingent on parental acceptance; parents never accepted, so no completed appointment.
Was discharge of the OPG proper under § 30-4117 when Nicholas still needed a guardian?	Parents argued discharge was improper because OPG did not locate any successor guardian who was willing and able to serve and Nicholas remained incapacitated.	OPG argued discharge was necessary because its staff could not safely perform duties for this ward and parents were appropriate successors.	Court: Reversed — § 30-4117 permits discharge only when the ward no longer needs a guardian or when OPG locates a successor who is qualified, available, and willing to become guardian; OPG failed to prove either.

Key Cases Cited

In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 (2016) (interpreting probate appeal statute and recognizing nonparty family members who objected may appeal)
Edwards v. Douglas County, 308 Neb. 259 (2021) (standing is a jurisdictional threshold and question of law)
In re Interest of Seth C., 307 Neb. 862 (2020) (statutory construction principles: give effect to statute’s purpose and text)
Cox Nebraska Telecom v. Qwest Corp., 268 Neb. 676 (2004) (specific statute controls over inconsistent general statute)