In re Interest of Nizigiyimana R.
295 Neb. 324
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Ziggy, adjudicated and in DHHS custody in 2013, had four older half‑siblings placed with and later adopted by great‑grandparents; a younger full sister was born after Ziggy’s removal and was privately adopted in 2014 by Kristopher and Stephanie.
- Kristopher and Stephanie (appellants) sought to intervene in Ziggy’s dependency case to obtain his placement with and eventual adoption by them so he could remain with his adopted sister.
- They relied on Nebraska statutes implementing the federal Fostering Connections Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43‑1311.01, 43‑1311.02), which impose duties on DHHS to pursue joint‑sibling placement and sibling contact.
- The juvenile court denied leave to intervene, finding (among other things) that: the appellants were not parties or preadoptive parents, equitable intervention is unavailable in juvenile court, and the statutory remedy to seek joint‑sibling placement is limited to parties.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutes impose duties on DHHS but do not create a private right for nonparties (including siblings or parents of unadjudicated siblings) to intervene to enforce those duties.
Issues
| Issue | Kristopher & Stephanie's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonparties (parent of an unadjudicated sibling) can intervene to seek joint‑sibling placement under §§ 43‑1311.01/.02 | Statutes implementing the Fostering Connections Act permit siblings/parents of siblings to enforce DHHS duties and thus to intervene | § 43‑1311.02(3) limits enforcement to "parties"; nonparties lack standing | Denied — remedy in § 43‑1311.02(3) is limited to parties; nonparty may not intervene |
| Whether DHHS duties to pursue joint‑sibling placement apply only when DHHS has custody of both siblings | Appellants: duties apply even if sibling is not a ward (statutory language and amendments broaden duties) | State: duties apply only when DHHS has placement authority for both children | Held that DHHS duties apply even if sibling is not a ward and custody orders were entered separately |
| Whether juvenile court may allow equitable intervention to advance siblings’ placement | Appellants: equitable intervention appropriate to protect sibling relationship | State/guardian: juvenile courts lack authority to permit equitable intervention | Court: juvenile court cannot authorize equitable intervention (citing precedent) |
| Whether appellants were preadoptive parents entitled to participate/stand to intervene under § 43‑1314 | Appellants: their daughter’s adopters are preadoptive parents with right to participate/intervene | State: appellants were not preadoptive parents because court had not approved Ziggy’s placement with them | Held appellants were not preadoptive parents and thus lacked standing under § 43‑1314 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Meridian H., 281 Neb. 465 (Neb. 2011) (federal Fostering Connections Act did not create a legal interest for unadjudicated siblings to intervene)
- In re Interest of Enyce J. & Eternity M., 291 Neb. 965 (Neb. 2015) (juvenile courts lack authority to permit equitable intervention)
- In re Interest of Kayle C. & Kylee C., 253 Neb. 685 (Neb. 1998) (limited circumstances where grandparents may intervene in dependency proceedings)
- Schaffer v. Cass County, 290 Neb. 892 (Neb. 2015) (doctrine on statutory construction: specific statute controls over general statute)