In re Interest of Nettie F.
295 Neb. 117
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Nettie F., born June 2014, was placed with foster parents Greg and Laura G. three days after birth; permanency objective was adoption. Biological parents voluntarily relinquished parental rights.
- Rodney and Brenda P., adoptive parents of Nettie’s older sibling Katherine, sought intervention (on Katherine’s behalf) and later moved to change Nettie’s placement to their home after completing a home study and visiting Nettie.
- The juvenile court initially allowed intervention, later vacated intervention orders for both the foster parents and Rodney and Brenda, limiting their participation to testimony about their own qualifications.
- After an evidentiary hearing the court found foster parents and Rodney/Brenda equally qualified but concluded placement with the foster parents served Nettie’s best interests and that joint sibling placement would be contrary to Nettie’s safety and well-being; the court ordered frequent sibling visitation.
- Rodney and Brenda appealed on Katherine’s behalf challenging denial of intervention, subpoenas, offer of proof restrictions, and alleged due process violations; the State and guardian ad litem moved that they lacked standing to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an adjudicated child’s sibling (via parents) may appeal an adverse placement order | Rodney/Brenda: statutory changes (§§ 43-1311.01/.02) confer a legal interest on siblings sufficient for standing to intervene and appeal | State/guardian ad litem: appeal rights in juvenile cases are statutory and § 43-2,106.01 does not authorize siblings to appeal; any participation statutes do not create party status | Court: Siblings are not authorized appellants under § 43-2,106.01; appeal dismissed |
| Whether juvenile court erred in vacating intervention orders | Rodney/Brenda: In re Meridian H. was superseded by later statutes favoring sibling participation | Guardian ad litem: statutory scheme grants notice/participation duties but does not create a right to intervene or appeal | Court: Even if participation rights exist, they do not create the right to appeal; court lacked jurisdiction over appeal |
| Whether foster parents (or sibling’s parents) can subpoena witnesses/offer proof beyond personal qualifications | Rodney/Brenda: needed subpoenas and offer of proof to challenge placement decision | Court/guardian ad litem: nonparties’ role is limited; discovery and broad evidentiary rights are reserved for parties | Court: Nonparties limited to testifying about their own qualifications; broader rights denied |
| Whether denial of subpoenas and cross-examination violated due process of the sibling | Rodney/Brenda: Katherine’s due process rights were violated by limiting ability to subpoena and confront witnesses | Guardian ad litem: juvenile due-process participation is statutory and limited; no fundamental right to appeal as nonparty | Court: No jurisdiction to hear merits because sibling lacks statutory right to appeal; procedural restrictions affirmed implicitly by dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Meridian H., 281 Neb. 465 (2011) (held unadjudicated sibling lacks separate cognizable legal interest to support standing)
- In re Interest of Enyce J. & Eternity M., 291 Neb. 965 (2015) (foster parents may participate in review hearings but lack party status and cannot appeal placement orders)
- In re Interest of Jackson E., 293 Neb. 84 (2016) (reiterated foster parents/grandparents have no statutory right to appeal juvenile placement orders)
- In re Interest of Kayle C. & Kylee C., 253 Neb. 685 (1998) (grandparents’ participation/leave-to-intervene analyzed under statutory framework)
- In re Interest of Destiny S., 263 Neb. 255 (2002) (statutory amendment narrowed foster parents’ rights; no intervention as of right)
- In re Interest of Jorius G. & Cheralee G., 249 Neb. 892 (1996) (foster parents had greater interest where adoption was pending; discussed limits of foster-parent participation)