In re Interest of Mekhi S.
309 Neb. 529
| Neb. | 2021Background
- 2016: State filed juvenile petition alleging neglect; MyJhae J. and Zaniya S. adjudicated and placed in DHHS custody with permanency objective of legal guardianship.
- 2017: Juvenile court appointed a guardian for MyJhae and Zaniya and expressly retained jurisdiction to review/modify/terminate the guardianship.
- September 2020: GAL moved to terminate the guardianship; court held a hearing and terminated the guardianship, placing the children back in DHHS custody.
- October 2020: State filed a supplemental (second) petition under § 43-247(8) seeking to reestablish juvenile-court jurisdiction (and related orders); GAL moved to dismiss, arguing the court never lost jurisdiction.
- The juvenile court dismissed the State’s second petition, concluding § 43-247(8) was not required because § 43-1312.01(3) and prior orders had preserved the court’s jurisdiction.
- State appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the dismissal did not substantially affect the State’s substantial rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of the State’s second petition was a final, appealable order | Dismissal prevented reestablishment of juvenile-court jurisdiction and affected State’s parens patriae interest | Dismissal had no substantial, final effect because the court had never lost jurisdiction | Dismissal did not affect a substantial right; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether § 43-247(8) required filing a new petition to reestablish jurisdiction after guardianship termination | § 43-247(8) required re-filing to reestablish jurisdiction following termination | § 43-247(8) addresses situations where jurisdiction has ended; here the court had retained jurisdiction under § 43-1312.01(3) | § 43-247(8) was inapplicable; court retained jurisdiction without a new petition |
| Effect of defective assignments of error in State’s brief on review | (State filed appeal but lacked a separate assignments-of-error section) | Appellate rules permit treating such briefs as failure to file, limiting review; court must still determine jurisdiction | Not outcome-determinative here; court addressed jurisdiction first and dismissed appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916 (2021) (procedural rule on assignments of error and appellate briefing)
- In re Interest of Zachary B., 299 Neb. 187 (2018) (appellate review of juvenile jurisdictional questions decided as matters of law)
- In re Interest of Michael N., 302 Neb. 652 (2019) (final-order requirement for appellate jurisdiction)
- In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764 (2017) (State’s parens patriae interest and substantial-rights analysis in juvenile cases)
- Deines v. Essex Corp., 293 Neb. 577 (2016) (definition of when an order affects a substantial right)
- In re Guardianship of Rebecca B. et al., 260 Neb. 922 (2000) (juvenile court retains jurisdiction over guardianships; historic treatment of guardianship jurisdiction)
- In re Interest of Brianna B., 21 Neb. App. 657 (2014) (Court of Appeals analysis that guardianship does not extinguish juvenile-court jurisdiction)