In re Interest of Mekhi S., 309 Neb. 529

In Sept. 2016 the State filed a juvenile petition; the children were adjudicated and DHHS obtained custody with a permanency objective of guardianship for two children.
In June 2017 the juvenile court appointed a guardian and expressly retained jurisdiction over the children for modification or termination of the guardianship.
The court conducted regular guardianship review hearings and the State participated in those reviews.
In Sept. 2020 the guardian ad litem moved to terminate the guardianship; the court terminated the guardianship and placed the children back with DHHS.
The State filed a second supplemental petition the next day seeking to invoke Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(8) to reestablish juvenile-court jurisdiction and request orders (including support), but did not allege new facts against parents.
The GAL moved to dismiss; the juvenile court dismissed the State’s second petition, concluding the court had never lost jurisdiction under § 43-1312.01(3); the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 43-247(8) required the State to file a new petition to reestablish juvenile-court jurisdiction after termination of a guardianship.	§ 43-247(8) required a second petition to reinstate jurisdiction so the court could place children in protective custody with DHHS.	The juvenile court retained jurisdiction under § 43-1312.01(3) when it appointed the guardian, so § 43-247(8) (which reestablishes jurisdiction where it previously ended) was inapplicable.	Court held § 43-247(8) was inapplicable; the juvenile court never lost jurisdiction, so a new petition to reestablish jurisdiction was unnecessary.
Whether dismissal of the State’s second petition was a final, appealable order affecting a substantial right.	The State treated the dismissal as appealable.	The dismissal did not substantially affect the State’s parens patriae rights because the court retained jurisdiction under the original petition.	Court held the dismissal did not substantially affect the State’s rights, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916 (discussing appellate briefing and review standards)
In re Interest of Zachary B., 299 Neb. 187 (jurisdictional questions decided as matters of law)
In re Interest of Michael N., 302 Neb. 652 (describing final-order requirements for appellate jurisdiction)
In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764 (clarifying that an order affects a substantial right only if it affects rights with finality)
Deines v. Essex Corp., 293 Neb. 577 (defining when an order affects the parties' rights with finality)
In re Guardianship of Rebecca B. et al., 260 Neb. 922 (holding juvenile courts retain jurisdiction over guardianships and related modification/termination)
In re Interest of Brianna B., 21 Neb. App. 657 (court of appeals reasoning that guardianship does not achieve the permanency of parenthood or adoption)