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

Nicholas H., an adult with severe persistent mental illness, was declared incapacitated; his parents served as temporary guardians 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 harassed and threatened by Nicholas; criminal charges and a protection order resulted, and Rotherham ceased contact for safety reasons.
In October 2019 the OPG moved under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-4117 to be discharged, alleging its services were "no longer necessary" because Nicholas’ parents were more appropriate successor guardians.
Nicholas’ parents filed a verified objection and repeatedly stated they were unwilling and unable (age, health, out-of-state residence, prior assaults) to serve as successor guardians.
The county court heard testimony, found Rotherham should no longer serve, concluded no one in OPG could cover Nicholas, discharged the OPG, and ordered the parents appointed as successor co-guardians contingent on their acceptance and completion of filing/training; the parents never accepted and appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court transferred the appeal and reviewed whether the parents had standing and whether discharge under § 30-4117 conformed to the Public Guardianship Act.

Issue	Parents' Argument	OPG's Argument	Held
Standing to appeal the county court's order	As interested persons who objected, they are directly affected and may appeal under the probate appeal statute	They lack standing because the order did not directly impose obligations on them	Parents have standing under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-1601 and precedent (they were interested persons who filed objections and the order affected their substantial rights)
Appointment of parents over their objection	Court erred by appointing them despite their unwillingness	Appointment was proper as a step in process; court may name successors	Appointment order was contingent; parents may not be compelled to accept; because they refused, the appointment was not completed and no reversible error occurred
Discharge of OPG under § 30-4117 (services "no longer necessary")	Discharge improper because Nicholas remains incapacitated and no successor guardian was located who was willing to serve	Discharge justified because parents were more appropriate successors and Rotherham could not safely serve; alternative statutes/processes support discharge	Reversed: § 30-4117 permits discharge only if (1) the ward is no longer incapacitated or (2) OPG has located a qualified, available, and willing successor guardian; here parents were unwilling, so discharge was improper; remanded

In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912, 875 N.W.2d 408 (2016) (stands for broad right to appeal in probate matters by interested family members who objected)
Edwards v. Douglas County, 308 Neb. 259, 953 N.W.2d 744 (2021) (addresses standing as jurisdictional threshold and statutory interpretation)
In re Interest of Seth C., 307 Neb. 862, 951 N.W.2d 135 (2020) (principles of statutory construction cited on interpreting legislative intent)
Cox Nebraska Telecom v. Qwest Corp., 268 Neb. 676, 687 N.W.2d 188 (2004) (applies rule that a specific statute controls over a general one)