- 84 -

Nebraska Advance She

293 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JACKSON E.

Cite as 293 Neb. 84

In re Interest of Jackson E., a 

under 18 years of age

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Chelsy 

and Jeff E., appellees, and Eri

Paul R., intervenors-appel

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed March 18, 2016. No. S-15-534.

1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question which does 

not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a 

matter of law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion 

independent of the lower court’s decision.

2. Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. 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.

3. Parent and Child: Standing: Appeal and Error. Foster parents, as 

such, do not have standing to appeal from an order changing a child’s 

placement.

4. Standing: Words and Phrases. 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.

5. Standing: Proof. Persons claiming standing must show that their claim 

is premised on their own legal rights and not the rights of another.

6. Standing: Jurisdiction: Parties. Standing is a jurisdictional component 

of a party’s case, because only a party who has standing may invoke the 

jurisdiction of a court.

7. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. The right of an appeal in a juvenile case in Nebraska is purely statutory.

Appeal from the County Court for Holt County: Alan 

Brodbeck, Judge. Appeal dismissed

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/courts/epub/

03/18/2016 09:18 AM CDT
- 85 -

Nebraska Advance She

293 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JACKSON E.

Cite as 293 Neb. 84

Frederick T. Bartell, of Fitzgerald, Vetter & Temple, for 

intervenors-appellants.

Thomas P. Herzog, Special Holt County Attorney, of Herzog 

Law Office, for appellee State of Nebraska.

Forrest F. Peetz, of Peetz Law, P.C., L.L.O., guardian 

ad litem.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Cassel, and 

Cassel, J

INTRODUCTION

Jackson E.’s former foster parents, one of whom is also his 

maternal grandmother, attempt to appeal from a juvenile court 

order overruling their motion for new trial or to alter or amend 

the court’s order declining to return Jackson’s placement to 

them. Because we conclude that they do not have standing to 

appeal, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Adjudication, Placem

Change of Place

In September 2012, the State filed a juvenile petition 

alleging that Jackson was an abused or neglected child1 and 

requesting temporary custody of Jackson. The county court for 

Holt County, Nebraska, sitting as a juvenile court, found that 

Jackson had suffered head injuries in his home and granted the 

Department of Health and Human Services (Department) temporary custody of Jackson. Jackson’s mother and father both 

entered pleas of no contest to the allegations. They did not give 

up their parental rights, and the Department has not sought to 

terminate their rights.

The Department placed Jackson in foster care with his 

maternal grandmother, Erin R., and her husband, Paul R. Over 

the next 21⁄2 years, Jackson remained placed with Erin and 

1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2008).
- 86 -

Nebraska Advance She

293 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JACKSON E.

Cite as 293 Neb. 84

Paul as a foster child. The Department’s permanency objective 

for Jackson was reunification with both parents.

In March 2015, the Department removed Jackson from his 

placement with Erin and Paul and placed him with other foster 

parents. Thereafter, Erin and Paul filed a motion for placement 

requesting that the court order the Department to place Jackson 

back with them. They also filed a motion to intervene.

Hear

The court held a hearing to review both the Department’s 

permanency objective for Jackson and Erin and Paul’s motion 

for placement and motion to intervene. It granted Erin and 

Paul’s motion to intervene, to which no party objected. After 

hearing testimony related to Jackson’s permanency objective, 

the court changed the permanency objective from reunification 

to adoption.

The court then took up Erin and Paul’s motion for placement. After 3 days of testimony, it found that the State had 

met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence 

that its placement of Jackson with the new foster parents was 

in his best interests. Accordingly, the court denied Erin and 

Paul’s motion.

Erin and Paul later filed a motion for new trial or to alter or 

amend the order denying their motion for placement. The parties dispute whether the terminating motion was timely filed. 

After the county court overruled the terminating motion, Erin 

and Paul brought this appeal.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Erin and Paul assign that the county court erred in (1) finding that the State had met its burden of proof that its placement 

plan was in the best interests of Jackson, (2) failing to give 

adequate preference to relative placement, and (3) failing to 

sustain their motion for placement.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] A jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of 
- 87 -

Nebraska Advance She

293 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JACKSON E.

Cite as 293 Neb. 84

law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion 

independent of the lower court’s decision.2

ANALYSIS

[2] 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.3 Thus, before reaching the merits, we must 

determine whether we have jurisdiction of this appeal.

Two jurisdictional issues are presented. The first is whether 

Erin and Paul have standing to appeal. The second is whether 

Erin and Paul timely filed their notice of appeal. Because we 

conclude that Erin and Paul do not have standing, we do not 

reach the second issue. An appellate court is not obligated to 

engage in an analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the 

case and controversy before it.4

[3] The State argues that Erin and Paul lack standing to 

appeal. It notes that we recently held In re Interest of Enyce 

J. & Eternity M.

5

 that foster parents, as such, do not have 

standing to appeal from an order changing a child’s placement. Erin and Paul respond that their case is distinguishable 

from In re Interest of Enyce J. & Eternity M., because Erin is 

Jackson’s grandmother and because they were granted leave 

to intervene.

[4-6] 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.6 Persons claiming standing must show that their claim is premised on their own legal 

2 In re Interest of Meridian H., 281 Neb. 465, 798 N.W.2d 96 (2011).

3 Id.

4 See D.I. v. Gibson, 291 Neb. 554, 867 N.W.2d 284 (2015).

5 In re Interest of Enyce J. & Eternity M., 291 Neb. 965, 870 N.W.2d 413 

(2015).

6 Id.
- 88 -

Nebraska Advance She

293 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JACKSON E.

Cite as 293 Neb. 84

rights and not the rights of another.7 Standing is a jurisdictional 

component of a party’s case, because only a party who has 

standing may invoke the jurisdiction of a court.8

As foster parents, Erin and Paul do not have standing to 

appeal the change in Jackson’s placement. As we said in In re 

Interest of Enyce J. & Eternity M., their status as foster parents 

gives them a role in the proceeding, but it does not confer on 

them a right, title, or interest in the subject matter of the controversy that gives them standing to appeal.

Neither their status as intervenors nor Erin’s status as 

Jackson’s grandmother changes this result. Although grandparents have a right to intervene in dependency proceedings 

involving their minor grandchildren prior to final disposition,9

this right “does not confer any special entitlements or priorities 

upon them with respect to temporary custody, placement, or 

any other issue before the juvenile court.”10 Rather, “[e]xercising their right of intervention simply enables those grandparents wanting to keep abreast of dependency proceedings to 

receive notice and have an opportunity to be heard with respect 

to actions taken by a juvenile court which could significantly 

affect their relationship with their grandchildren.”11 Erin and 

Paul’s intervention allowed them to keep abreast of the proceedings and be heard by the county court, but it did not confer 

standing to appeal.

[7] The right of appeal in a juvenile case in this state is 

purely statutory,12 and neither foster parents nor grandparents, 

as such, have a statutory right to appeal from a juvenile court 

7 Id.

8 State ex rel. Reed v. State, 278 Neb. 564, 773 N.W.2d 349 (2009).

9 See In re Interest of Kayle C. & Kylee C., 253 Neb. 685, 574 N.W.2d 473 

(1998).

10 Id. at 693, 574 N.W.2d 478.

11 Id.

12 See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2,106.01 (Cum. Supp. 2014); Huskey v. Huskey, 

289 Neb. 439, 855 N.W.2d 377 (2014).
- 89 -

Nebraska Advance She

293 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JACKSON E.

Cite as 293 Neb. 84

order. The statute that confers a right to appeal provides, in 

relevant part, that an appeal from a final order or judgment 

entered by a juvenile court may be taken by the “juvenile’s 

parent, custodian, or guardian.”13 It goes on to define custodian 

or guardian, providing that “[f]or 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.”14

Erin and Paul are not and were not Jackson’s custodians or 

guardians for the purposes of the statute. We have interpreted 

the term “custodian” in the context of standing to appeal under 

the Nebraska Juvenile Code on two occasions. On the first 

occasion, in In re Interest of S.R.,

15 the statute then in effect 

lacked the current provision defining “custodian or guardian.” 

We held that “custodian” meant “legal custodian, that is, the 

person or entity given custody of a child by appropriate court 

order.”16 We said that “[m]ere ‘placement with’ a person, or 

‘possession of’ a child, does not constitute the persons given 

such placement or possession as custodians.”17 And we therefore concluded that a child’s foster parents did not have standing to appeal, because they did not constitute custodians for 

purposes of the statute.

On the second occasion, in In re Interest of Artharena D.,

18

we noted that the relevant statutory language was amended to 

include the provision defining “custodian or guardian,” and 

we concluded that the amendment expanded our definition 

13 § 43-2,106.01(c).

14 Id.

15 In re Interest of S.R., 217 Neb. 528, 352 N.W.2d 141 (1984), disapproved 

on other grounds, In re Interest of Kayle C. & Kylee C., supra note 9.

16 In re Interest of S.R., supra note 15, 217 Neb. at 535, 352 N.W.2d at 145.

17 Id.

18 In re Interest of Artharena D., 253 Neb. 613, 617, 571 N.W.2d 608, 611 

(1997).
- 90 -

Nebraska Advance She

293 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JACKSON E.

Cite as 293 Neb. 84

of “custodian.” We stated that through the amendment, “the 

Legislature expressed an intention to expand the definition of 

‘custodian’ beyond the restrictive meaning we gave it in In re 

Interest of S.R. and to extend the right of appeal to individuals 

having the care of a juvenile by means other than an award 

under the Juvenile Code.”19 We therefore concluded that a person empowered by parental authority to act as the custodian for 

a child has a right to appeal under the statute.

The statutory amendment and our recognition of the expanded 

definition of “custodian” in In re Interest of Artharena D. do 

not change the outcome in this case. The amendment and 

our subsequent interpretation make clear that the Legislature 

intended the amendment to ensure that those with alternative custody arrangements, bestowed outside the courts, have 

standing to appeal. The amendment does not affect the validity 

of our holding in In re Interest of S.R. that foster parents are 

not custodians for the purposes of the statute. Foster care is 

generally a short-term placement: It is a temporary measure 

for maintaining the child until the court can make a permanent 

disposition.20 Erin and Paul were only Jackson’s foster parents and were never awarded custody of Jackson. Therefore, 

they are not custodians or guardians for the purposes of the 

appeals statute, and they have no right to take an appeal in 

these circumstances.

CONCLUSION

Without a right to appeal, Erin and Paul have no standing, 

and this court has no jurisdiction over their purported appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismiss

Miller-Lerman, J., participating on bri

19 Id. at 618, 571 N.W.2d at 612.

20 In re Interest of Enyce J. & Eternity M., supra note 5.