In re Interest of Enyce J. & Eternity M.
291 Neb. 965
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Mother (Erica J.) was arrested and later convicted of felonies; State filed juvenile petitions and the Department took temporary custody of newborn Eternity M.
- Department placed Eternity with foster parents Mark S. and Roberta S. shortly after birth; relatives (maternal aunt Deseyre in Nevada) were investigated under the ICPC for potential placement.
- Mark and Roberta filed to intervene, alleging they stood in loco parentis and objecting to any placement change; Erica moved to place Eternity with her aunt Deseyre.
- An ICPC report approved Deseyre; the juvenile court combined hearings, admitted evidence (including Mark’s affidavit and the ICPC report), dismissed the intervention complaint, and ordered placement with Deseyre.
- Mark appealed the dismissal of the intervention complaint and the placement change; the State and Erica argued foster parents lack standing to appeal and cannot equitably intervene in juvenile court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mark) | Defendant's Argument (Erica/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal placement change | Foster parents have standing because they stood in loco parentis and bonded with the child | Foster parents lack a legal/equitable interest in the child’s placement and thus lack standing | For defendant: foster parents lack standing; appellate court has no jurisdiction to review placement change |
| Right to intervene as of right | Mark and Roberta claimed a direct legal interest and would be harmed by placement change | Intervention requires a direct legal interest; foster parents’ interest is indirect/conjectural | For defendant: intervention as of right denied; foster parents not entitled to intervene |
| Equitable intervention in juvenile court | Even if not statutory, equity should allow intervention where foster parents have relied on their caregiving role | Juvenile court is statutorily created with limited jurisdiction and cannot grant equitable intervention outside statute | For defendant: juvenile court cannot allow equitable intervention beyond statutes |
| Best interests of child (placement change) | Placement with foster parents was in child’s best interests due to bonding | Placement with approved maternal aunt (ICPC approved) served child’s best interests and reunification objectives | Court ordered placement with aunt; appellate review of placement barred for lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Jahon S., 291 Neb. 97 (2015) (juvenile cases reviewed de novo)
- Murray v. Stine, 291 Neb. 125 (2015) (jurisdictional questions of law reviewed independently)
- Jeffrey B. v. Amy L., 283 Neb. 940 (2012) (equitable intervention principles)
- Marcuzzo v. Bank of the West, 290 Neb. 809 (2015) (standing involves a legal or equitable interest)
- In re Interest of Jorius G. & Cheralee G., 249 Neb. 892 (1996) (prior case recognizing foster-parent standing where parental rights were relinquished)
- In re Interest of Destiny S., 263 Neb. 255 (2002) (limits on foster-parent participation and holding that foster parents may not intervene as of right)
- In re Interest of Artharena D., 253 Neb. 613 (1997) (parental liberty interest in child’s custody)
- Latham v. Schwerdtfeger, 282 Neb. 121 (2011) (definition and effect of standing in loco parentis)