DocketNumber: No. S-17-961.
Citation Numbers: 910 N.W.2d 773, 299 Neb. 848
Judges: Derr
Filed Date: 5/4/2018
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/16/2022
**849INTRODUCTION
This appeal arises from termination proceedings for Joseph C. in the county court for Lincoln County, sitting as a juvenile court. Tina E., the biological aunt and adoptive sister of Joseph's father, appeals the juvenile court's order which held that Joseph's placement with his nonrelative foster parents and permanency through adoption by them was in his best interests. Because Tina lacks standing pursuant to
BACKGROUND
Joseph, born in May 2009, is the biological child of Dana C. and Michael E. On June 10, 2015, the State, represented by the county attorney, filed a petition alleging that Joseph, then age 6, was a child within the meaning of
After being removed from the care and custody of his parents, Joseph had two different family placements. Joseph **850was initially placed with his maternal grandparents, but that placement was disrupted when the grandparents' home study was denied. Subsequently, Joseph was placed in Colorado with his maternal aunt and uncle. He remained there from August 28, 2015, to June 18, 2016. However, Joseph exhibited behavioral issues at home and at school, and he was removed at the request of the maternal aunt and uncle, who could not handle Joseph's needs.
On June 18, 2016, Joseph was placed in the agency-based foster home of Heather F. and Kevin F. in Nebraska. Ten days later, on June 28, the juvenile court filed its order terminating the parental rights of Joseph's biological parents pursuant to
On June 30, 2016, 2 days after the termination of parental rights, Tina was located through a "Family Finding" contract with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (the Department). Tina, who lives in Wyoming with her husband, *776Rodney E., is the biological aunt of Joseph's father, Michael. Tina's parents adopted Michael; therefore, in addition to being Michael's biological aunt, Tina is Michael's adoptive sister.
Tina was unaware of Joseph's existence until July 2016, not long after Dana's and Michael's parental rights were terminated. Tina immediately made efforts through the Department to be involved in Joseph's life.
In December 2016, the Department completed a home study for Tina and Rodney, and they were approved for placement in January 2017. Upon the recommendation of Joseph's therapist, Joseph was slowly introduced to the concept of Tina and Rodney through their letters and pictures. Tina was allowed to meet Joseph in person for the first time on February 7, 2017, 7 months after she learned of his existence.
Following a status hearing on February 7, 2017, the juvenile court adopted the Department's recommendation that Joseph remain in his current placement with Heather and **851Kevin and that the matter be continued to allow the integration of Tina and Rodney into his life with the goal of placing him with them. Tina and Rodney continued to have periodic visitation with Joseph.
On May 2, 2017, the juvenile court conducted a review hearing. It adopted the case plan and court report recommending eventual placement with Tina and Rodney, modified to include the recommendations of Joseph's therapist as to the process of working toward placement with them.
On June 21, 2017, the juvenile court held a placement hearing. The Department sought a change in Joseph's placement based on a material change in circumstances, i.e., the discovery of Tina, a family member willing and qualified to adopt Joseph. The State and Joseph's guardian ad litem opposed placement with Tina. Tina attended the hearing without counsel and made no motion to intervene. Following the hearing, the juvenile court took the matter of placement under advisement.
On August 4, 2017, the juvenile court filed an order finding that, even assuming the Department had proved a material change in circumstances, the "current placement is in Joseph's best interest and that permanency through adoption with his foster parents [is] in Joseph's best interest." In so finding, the juvenile court noted that it was not concerned about any fault or infirmity of relative placement and that Joseph's time in foster care was not a reason, in and of itself, to deny placement with Tina. However, the juvenile court observed that "allowing a change of placement is the real and present danger to Joseph's long term mental stability due to his current mental health fragility as a result of multiple changes in placements relative to his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder." The juvenile court determined that any further delay in permanency would destabilize Joseph's mental health. The juvenile court set the matter for review on October 3 and ordered the Department to prepare a case plan consistent with the order.
Tina timely filed her notice of appeal.
**852ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Tina assigns that the juvenile court erred in (1) changing the permanency objective from "reunification" with her to adoption by Heather and Kevin and (2) failing to change Joseph's placement from Heather and Kevin to Tina.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches a *777conclusion independently of the juvenile court's findings.
A jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Tina challenges the order of the juvenile court that found it was in Joseph's best interests to continue placement with Heather and Kevin and to change the permanency plan from adoption by Tina and Rodney to adoption by Heather and Kevin. In a juvenile case, as in any other appeal, before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.
Standing involves a real interest in the cause of action, meaning some legal or equitable right, title, or interest in the subject matter of the controversy.
In assessing standing, this court has stated that the right of appeal in a juvenile case in Nebraska is purely statutory.
(a) The juvenile;
(b) The guardian ad litem;
(c) The juvenile's parent, custodian, or guardian. For purposes of this subdivision, custodian or guardian shall include, but not be limited to, the Department ..., an association, or an individual to whose care the juvenile has been awarded pursuant to the Nebraska Juvenile Code; or
(d) The county attorney or petitioner....
Tina is not expressly included in any of these categories.
This court has previously addressed whether relatives not listed in § 43-2,106.01(2) have standing to appeal a juvenile court order.
Here, Tina cannot claim a right to appeal under § 43-2,106.01(2) as Joseph's "custodian," because she has never had custody of him. Nor can she appeal based on her status as the biological aunt and adoptive sister of Joseph's father, Michael. Tina's familial link to Joseph is more remote than the relationships this court found insufficient to provide standing in In re Interest of Nettie F. and In re Interest of Jackson E . This is especially true considering that Michael's parental rights to Joseph have been terminated.
Tina argues that the Legislature did not intend § 43-2, 106.01(2) to exclusively govern standing to appeal juvenile matters. She relies on that section's provision that "custodian or guardian shall include, but not be limited to , the Department ..., an association, or an individual to whose care the juvenile has been awarded pursuant to the Nebraska Juvenile Code."
Further, Tina contends that under the facts of this case, a narrow construction of § 43-2,106.01(2) that denies her and similarly situated individuals the right to appeal, while allowing only the county attorney and guardian ad litem to appeal, does not ensure the advancement of the child's best interests in all cases and could *779not represent the Legislature's intent. A court gives statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning and will not look beyond the statute to determine the legislative intent when the words are plain, direct, and unambiguous.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Tina lacks standing, and her appeal is dismissed.
APPEAL DISMISSED .
In re Interest of Enyce J. & Eternity M. ,
In re Interest of Becka P. et al. ,
In re Interest of Zachary B. ,
In re Interest of Jackson E. ,
In re Interest of Meridian H. ,
In re Interest of Jackson E., supra note 4.
See id .
In re Interest of Nettie F .,
See, In re Interest of Nettie F., supra note 8 ; In re Interest of Jackson E., supra note 4 ; In re Interest of Meridian H., supra note 5.
In re Interest of Nettie F., supra note 8.
In re Interest of Jackson E., supra note 4.
In re Interest of Meridian H., supra note 5 (holding, in context of appeal from juvenile placement order, that grandparents lacked standing, because any interest or right that they may have had via their biological relationship to adjudicated child ceased to exist when parental rights of grandparents' child, that is, adjudicated child's parent, were terminated).
§ 43-2,106.01(2)(c) (emphasis supplied).
In re Interest of Artharena D. ,
In re Interest of Jackson E., supra note 4,
In re Interest of Nettie F., supra note 8.
In re Interest of Nizigiyimana R. ,
In re Interest of Meridian H., supra note 5,
See, In re Interest of Nettie F., supra note 8 ; In re Interest of Jackson E., supra note 4.
See § 43-533.
In re Interest of Jordon B. , 312 Neb. 827 ( 2022 )
In re Interest of Jordon B. , 312 Neb. 827 ( 2022 )
In re Interest of Jordon B. , 312 Neb. 827 ( 2022 )
In re Interest of Jordon B. , 312 Neb. 827 ( 2022 )
In re Interest of Jordon B. , 312 Neb. 827 ( 2022 )
In re Interest of Jordon B. , 312 Neb. 827 ( 2022 )
In re Interest of Jordon B. , 312 Neb. 827 ( 2022 )
In re Interest of Jordon B. , 312 Neb. 827 ( 2022 )
In re Interest of Jordon B. , 312 Neb. 827 ( 2022 )
In re Interest of Jordon B. , 312 Neb. 827 ( 2022 )
In re Interest of Jordon B. , 312 Neb. 827 ( 2022 )
In re Interest of Jordon B. , 312 Neb. 827 ( 2022 )