- 135 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ARTAMIS G. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 135

In re Interest of Artamis G. et al., 

children under 18 years of age. 

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Krysta G., 

appellee, and Auburne G., appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 16, 2019. No. A-18-743.

1. Interventions. Whether a party has the right to intervene in a proceeding is a question of law.

2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing questions of law, an 

appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently 

of the conclusions reached by the trial court.

3. Interventions. As a prerequisite to intervention under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-328 (Reissue 2016), the intervenor must have a direct and legal 

interest of such character that the intervenor will lose or gain by the 

direct operation and legal effect of the judgment which may be rendered 

by the action.

4. ____. An indirect, remote, or conjectural interest in the result of a suit is 

not enough to establish intervention as a matter of right.

5. Interventions: Final Orders. The denial of a motion to intervene is a 

final, appealable order.

6. Parental Rights: Interventions. Grandparents have a sufficient legal 

interest in dependency proceedings involving their biological or adopted 

minor grandchildren to entitle them to intervene in such proceedings 

prior to final disposition.

7. Statutes: Presumptions: States. Where the applicable law of a sister 

state is not presented to a Nebraska court, it is presumed to be the same 

as the law of Nebraska.

Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County: 

Douglas F. Johnson, Judge. Affirmed.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

04/16/2019 09:07 AM CDT
- 136 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ARTAMIS G. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 135

Andrea Finegan McChesney, of McChesney & Farrell Law 

Offices, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Anne E. Troia, P.C., L.L.O., guardian ad litem.

Riedmann, Bishop, and Welch, Judges.

Riedmann, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Auburne G. asserts that she is the grandmother of Krysta 

G.’s six children. She appeals the order of the separate juvenile 

court of Douglas County denying her complaint to intervene 

in proceedings to adjudicate Krysta’s children. For the reasons 

set out below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In February 2017, the State filed a petition in the separate juvenile court of Douglas County, seeking to adjudicate 

Krysta’s six children under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) 

(Reissue 2016). In August, Auburne filed a complaint to intervene in the adjudication proceedings, alleging that she was 

the “in loco grandparent” of the children and therefore had an 

interest in the adjudication proceedings under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-328 (Reissue 2016). Following a hearing, the juvenile 

court denied Auburne’s complaint “for the reason that the 

Complainant is not a biological relative, she is not [Krysta’s] 

stepmother, and, additionally, [Auburne] resides in Texas.” 

Auburne did not appeal this decision.

In May 2018, Auburne filed a second complaint to intervene, alleging that she was the grandmother of the children 

and therefore had a right to intervene. It appears that at least 

one objection to the complaint was filed, but it is not contained in our record. At the hearing on her second complaint, 

Auburne attempted to prove that she had adopted Krysta by 
- 137 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ARTAMIS G. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 135

offering into evidence a copy of Krysta’s birth certificate, 

but the court sustained objections to the exhibit on the basis 

that it was not authenticated. Krysta then testified that she 

was adopted by Auburne in Texas in December 2017. Krysta 

admitted that she was 33 years old at the time of the adoption. On cross-examination, Krysta stated that she has lived 

in Omaha, Nebraska, for approximately 8 years and, prior to 

that, lived in Leander, Texas, for 2 years. She confirmed that 

Auburne currently lives in Leander and has lived there over 10 

years. Krysta further admitted that her biological mother was 

still living and that her parental rights to Krysta had not been 

terminated, nor had she relinquished those rights. Auburne 

offered no further evidence.

Following Krysta’s testimony, the guardian ad litem for the 

minor children objected to Auburne’s complaint to intervene, 

arguing that there was no testimony that Auburne had any 

relationship with the children. Counsel for the Department of 

Health and Human Services also objected to the complaint 

to intervene, alleging there was no evidence that Auburne 

was the parent of Krysta or that she was a grandparent of 

any of the children. The juvenile court subsequently denied 

Auburne’s second complaint to intervene, stating that “[t]here 

is no evidentiary basis to grant the relief sought.” Auburne 

timely appealed.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Auburne assigns, restated, that the juvenile court abused its 

discretion in denying her complaint to intervene.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] Whether a party has the right to intervene in a proceeding is a question of law. Jeffrey B. v. Amy L., 283 Neb. 

940, 814 N.W.2d 737 (2012). When reviewing questions of 

law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclusions reached by the trial 

court. Id.
- 138 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ARTAMIS G. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 135

ANALYSIS

Auburne asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion 

in denying her complaint to intervene. We do not review the 

juvenile court’s decision for abuse of discretion; rather, as a 

question of law, we resolve the question independently of the 

lower court’s decision. See id. Auburne’s ability to intervene 

is governed by § 25-328, which states:

Any person who has or claims an interest in the matter in litigation, in the success of either of the parties to 

an action, or against both, in any action pending or to 

be brought in any of the courts of the State of Nebraska, 

may become a party to an action between any other persons or corporations, either by joining the plaintiff in 

claiming what is sought by the complaint, or by uniting 

with the defendants in resisting the claim of the plaintiff, 

or by demanding anything adversely to both the plaintiff 

and defendant, either before or after issue has been joined 

in the action, and before the trial commences.

[3,4] Thus, as a prerequisite to intervention under § 25-328, 

the intervenor must have a direct and legal interest of such 

character that the intervenor will lose or gain by the direct 

operation and legal effect of the judgment which may be rendered by the action. Wayne L. Ryan Revocable Trust v. Ryan, 

297 Neb. 761, 901 N.W.2d 671 (2017). An indirect, remote, 

or conjectural interest in the result of a suit is not enough to 

establish intervention as a matter of right. Id. Therefore, a person seeking to intervene must allege facts showing that he or 

she possesses the requisite legal interest in the subject matter 

of the action. Id.

On appeal, Auburne argues that she has a direct legal interest in the adjudication proceedings because she stands in 

loco parentis over the minor children. Additionally, Auburne 

asserts that she has a direct legal interest in the adjudication 

proceedings because she adopted Krysta and therefore has the 

same legal rights as if she were Krysta’s biological mother. 

We find each claim to be without merit.
- 139 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ARTAMIS G. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 135

[5] First, Auburne claims she stands in loco parentis over 

the minor children. However, in loco parentis status was the 

basis for Auburne’s first complaint to intervene. The juvenile 

court denied that complaint, and Auburne did not appeal that 

decision. The denial of a motion to intervene is a final, appealable order. Streck, Inc. v. Ryan Family, 297 Neb. 773, 901 

N.W.2d 284 (2017). See, also, In re Interest of Kayle C. & 

Kylee C., 253 Neb. 685, 574 N.W.2d 473 (1998). Having failed 

to appeal the denial of her complaint to intervene on an in loco 

parentis basis, Auburne has waived this argument.

The operative pleading upon which this appeal is brought 

is Auburne’s second complaint to intervene, in which she 

asserts that as the children’s grandmother, she should be made 

a party as a matter of right.

[6] The Nebraska Supreme Court has held that grandparents 

have a sufficient legal interest in dependency proceedings 

involving their biological or adopted minor grandchildren to 

entitle them to intervene in such proceedings prior to final 

disposition. In re Interest of Kayle C. & Kylee C., supra. 

However, Auburne failed to prove that she is Krysta’s mother. 

The only evidence adduced to support her assertion is Krysta’s 

testimony that Auburne adopted her in December 2017 at the 

age of 33. The birth certificate offered by Auburne, which 

purportedly supported this assertion, was not an authenticated 

copy and was not admitted into evidence.

[7] Moreover, Auburne did not submit to the court Texas’ 

adoption law; thus, the juvenile court could properly presume Texas adoption law to be the same as Nebraska’s. 

See, Gruenewald v. Waara, 229 Neb. 619, 428 N.W.2d 210 

(1988) (where applicable law of sister state is not presented 

to Nebraska court, it is presumed to be same as law of 

Nebraska); Quintela v. Quintela, 4 Neb. App. 396, 544 N.W.2d 

111 (1996). Therefore, in order for this court to determine that 

Auburne successfully adopted Krysta, Krysta’s testimony must 

establish that the adoption was valid under Nebraska’s adoption statute.
- 140 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ARTAMIS G. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 135

Adoption of an adult in Nebraska is governed by Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 43-101(2) (Reissue 2016), which states, in relevant part:

The adoption of an adult child by another adult or adults 

who are not the stepparent of the adult child may be permitted if the adult child has had a parent-child relationship with the prospective parent or parents for a period 

of at least six months next preceding the adult child’s age 

of majority and (a) the adult child has no living parents, 

(b) the adult child’s parent or parents had been deprived 

of parental rights to such child by the order of any court 

of competent jurisdiction, (c) the parent or parents, if 

living, have relinquished the adult child for adoption by 

a written instrument, (d) the parent or parents had abandoned the child for at least six months next preceding the 

adult child’s age of majority, or (e) the parent or parents 

are incapable of consenting.

Assuming, without deciding, that Auburne could establish 

she had a parent-child relationship with Krysta for the 6 

months prior to Krysta’s age of majority, the record does not 

support any of the circumstances set forth in § 43-101(2)(a) 

through (e). Krysta testified that she has a living biological 

mother and that her biological mother’s parental rights were 

not terminated prior to Krysta’s adoption, nor did she relinquish her parental rights to Krysta. Further, there is no evidence in the record before us indicating that Krysta was abandoned by her biological mother before she reached the age of 

majority or that her biological mother is incapable of consenting to Krysta’s adoption. Therefore, Auburne failed to prove 

that she was Krysta’s mother and, thus, the children’s grandmother. Absent such relationship, Auburne did not have a legal 

right to intervene as a grandparent.

At oral argument, Auburne’s counsel asserted that the evidence was sufficient to find a beneficial relationship between 

Auburne and the children and that, therefore, proof of a 

grandparent relationship was not required. We note, however, 
- 141 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

27 Nebraska Appellate Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF ARTAMIS G. ET AL.

Cite as 27 Neb. App. 135

that Auburne presented no evidence at the hearing on her second motion to intervene regarding her relationship with the 

children; rather, only argument of her counsel was made on 

this issue. The only evidence offered was the birth certificate 

(which was not received) and Krysta’s testimony regarding the 

purported adoption. Denial of the second complaint to intervene was therefore proper.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the juvenile 

court did not err in denying Auburne’s complaint to intervene.

Affirmed.