In re Interest of Jordon B.
981 N.W.2d 242
Neb.2022Background
- Jordon B., born Sept. 2020, was removed from his parents and placed in DHHS custody; guardian ad litem Christina Boydston was appointed.
- Jordon was first placed with his maternal grandfather and step-grandmother (Jason and Lesley D.); after they declined long-term care, DHHS placed Jordon with foster parents Andrew and Alicia Todd (the Todds).
- Andrew is Lesley’s biological son (adult); he is not biologically related to Jordon, and he shares adopted siblings with Jordon through Lesley’s adoption of Jordon’s older brothers.
- The Todds moved to intervene (claiming foster-parent rights and Andrew claiming sibling status); Leah sought change of placement to a relative, Rita Pospishil; a hearing was held and the court authorized placement with Pospishil.
- The juvenile court denied the Todds’ intervention request (citing precedent that foster parents lack right to intervene/appeal) and denied Andrew’s intervention as a sibling; the Todds appealed and Boydston cross-appealed on limited issues.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: foster parents lack standing to intervene or appeal placement orders; Andrew is not a “sibling” under the Foster Care Review Act (no common parent); Boydston’s counsel-appointment claim was not preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Do foster parents (the Todds) have statutory standing to intervene or appeal the placement order? | Todds: as foster parents who care for the child, they should be permitted to intervene and appeal to protect the child’s best interests. | State/DHHS: § 43-2,106.01 does not list foster parents; precedent holds foster parents lack legal/equitable interest to appeal or intervene as of right. | Held: No. Foster parents are not custodians/guardians for § 43-2,106.01 and lack right to intervene or to appeal placement changes. |
| 2) Does an adult who is related only via adoptions/step relationships (Andrew) qualify as a “sibling” under the Foster Care Review Act and thus have a limited statutory right to intervene? | Todds/Andrew: Andrew asserted step/half-sibling or stepuncle relationships and claimed § 43-1311.02(9) grants siblings a limited right to intervene for joint placement/visitation. | Boydston/State: A “sibling” requires a common parent; Andrew and Jordon do not share a parent—sharing siblings does not create sibling status. | Held: Andrew is not a “sibling” under the Act because there is no common parent; therefore § 43-1311.02(9) does not authorize his intervention. |
| 3) If a sibling could intervene, does § 43-1311.02(9) extend to adult siblings or only minor siblings? | Todds/Andrew argued the statute should apply regardless of sibling’s age. | Juvenile court questioned whether the statutory right was limited to child siblings; the Supreme Court noted it need not resolve this because Andrew is not a sibling. | Held: Court did not decide age scope because Andrew failed to qualify as a sibling; intervention denial affirmed on that ground. |
| 4) Did the juvenile court err by failing to appoint counsel for the guardian ad litem or appoint new counsel for the child after credibility attacks on the guardian ad litem report? | Boydston: Requested relief on cross-appeal asserting the court should have appointed counsel after challenges to the GAL report. | State: Record contains no request by Boydston for appointment; issue not presented to trial court so not preserved. | Held: No error—Boydston did not request counsel below and the appellate court will not consider issues not presented to the trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Enyce J. & Eternity M., 291 Neb. 965, 870 N.W.2d 413 (2015) (foster parents lack legal/equitable interest to appeal placement and cannot equitably intervene outside statutory authority)
- In re Interest of Nizigiyimana R., 295 Neb. 324, 889 N.W.2d 362 (2016) (statutory duties re: sibling placement cannot be enforced by nonparties; limitation on intervention)
- In re Interest of Jackson E., 293 Neb. 84, 875 N.W.2d 863 (2016) (foster parents who were never awarded custody are not custodians/guardians for appeal purposes)
- In re Interest of Joseph C., 299 Neb. 848, 910 N.W.2d 773 (2018) (right of appeal in juvenile cases is purely statutory; § 43-2,106.01 governs who may appeal)
- In re Interest of Mekhi S., 309 Neb. 529, 960 N.W.2d 732 (2021) (jurisdictional standing inquiry is required before reaching merits)