- 529 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF MEKHI S. ET AL.

Cite as 309 Neb. 529

In re Interest of Mekhi S. et al., children 

under 18 years of age.

State of Nebraska, appellant, v. 

Mekhi S. et al., appellees.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed June 18, 2021. No. S-20-832.

1. Appeal and Error. Where the assignments of error consist of headings 

or subparts of arguments and are not within a designated assignments of 

error section, an appellate court may proceed as though the party failed 

to file a brief, providing no review at all, or, alternatively, may examine 

the proceedings for plain error.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. For an appellate court 

to acquire jurisdiction over an appeal, there must be a final order or final 

judgment entered by the court from which the appeal is taken.

5. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. In determining whether an order 

affects a substantial right, and is thus a final, appealable order, it is not 

enough that the right itself be substantial; the effect of the order on that 

right must also be substantial.

6. ____: ____. Whether the effect of an order is substantial, as required for 

the order to be a final, appealable order, depends on whether it affects 

with finality the rights of the parties in the subject matter.

7. Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Guardians and Conservators. Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 43-1312.01(3) (Reissue 2016) requires that where a juvenile court places a child in a guardianship with an individual, the court 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

08/27/2021 01:08 AM CDT
- 530 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF MEKHI S. ET AL.

Cite as 309 Neb. 529

shall retain jurisdiction over the child for modification or termination of 

the guardianship order.

Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County: 

Vernon Daniels, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Rachael Henderson, Deputy Douglas County Attorney, 

Nicole Brundo, and Mark Shimizu, Senior Certified Law 

Student, for appellant. 

Christine P. Costantakos, guardian ad litem, for appellees.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Cassel, J.

INTRODUCTION

The State appeals from a juvenile court order dismissing a 

supplemental petition filed after the court terminated a guardianship over which the court had expressly retained jurisdiction. The State urges that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(8) (Reissue 

2016) required a second adjudication. We disagree. Because 

the State’s substantial rights were not substantially affected by 

the court’s dismissal of its supplemental petition, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

In September 2016, the State filed a petition (original petition) in the separate juvenile court of Douglas County, alleging 

that MyJhae J. and Zaniya S., and two siblings, came within 

the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a) because their mother failed to 

provide them with proper parental care.

All of the children were adjudicated on that basis, and they 

were placed into the custody of the Nebraska Department of 

Health and Human Services (DHHS) for appropriate care, 

services, and placement. The court ordered a permanency 

objective of legal guardianship for MyJhae and Zaniya, with a 
- 531 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF MEKHI S. ET AL.

Cite as 309 Neb. 529

concurrent plan of reunification, and it ordered a permanency 

objective of reunification for their two siblings, with concurrent plans of adoption or guardianship.

In June 2017, pursuant to DHHS’ motion, the court appointed 

a guardian for MyJhae and Zaniya. The guardianship order 

relieved DHHS of further responsibility for the children’s care, 

custody, and control.

As DHHS’ motion had requested, the court’s order retained 

jurisdiction over them in connection with the guardianship. 

Accordingly, the court conducted regular guardianship review 

hearings for MyJhae and Zaniya under this same juvenile 

docket and entered orders finding that the permanency objective of guardianship continued to be in their best interests. The 

State participated in these guardianship review hearings.

In September 2020, the guardian ad litem (GAL) filed a 

motion to terminate the guardianship. The motion alleged that 

the guardianship had “disrupted” and requested that MyJhae 

and Zaniya be returned to the custody of DHHS. The motion 

was filed in the existing juvenile docket. The State did not join 

in this motion. The court held a hearing at which all parties—

including the State—fully participated.

Following the hearing on September 22, 2020, the court terminated the guardianship and placed MyJhae and Zaniya back 

in the custody of DHHS.

The next day, the State filed a second supplemental petition 

(second petition) within the same docketed case, seeking to 

place MyJhae and Zaniya under the court’s jurisdiction under 

§ 43-247(8). The second petition did not make any allegations 

against the parents or seek to terminate their rights. It sought 

no substantive relief regarding MyJhae and Zaniya other than 

to “make such orders as deemed appropriate in the premises 

and determine whether support will be ordered pursuant to 

Neb. Rev. Stat. §43-290 [(Reissue 2016)].”

One month later, the State filed a motion to set the matter for adjudication. On that same date, the court entered an 
- 532 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF MEKHI S. ET AL.

Cite as 309 Neb. 529

order scheduling the second petition to be heard. A few days 

later, the GAL filed a motion to dismiss the second petition, 

which also included an objection to the State’s motion to set 

the matter for adjudication, alleging that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the State’s second petition based 

upon the principle of res judicata.

The State’s motion to set for hearing, along with the GAL’s 

motion to dismiss and objection, were heard by the court, with 

all parties participating. Regarding the two children at issue in 

this appeal, the State offered no evidence and made no offers 

of proof; rather, the parties presented arguments regarding their 

respective views.

The State explained that it believed that § 43-247(8) required 

it to file a second petition to reestablish the court’s jurisdiction, 

so that the court could “move forward in placing the children 

in a protective placement [with DHHS].”

The GAL disputed the State’s interpretation of § 43-247(8), 

arguing that the court retained jurisdiction over the case from 

the original petition. Further, the GAL asserted that the relief 

the State sought had already been granted. Counsel for the 

mother, counsel for an intervening father, and counsel for 

DHHS all concurred on the record that dismissal of the second 

petition appeared appropriate under the circumstances.

On the record, the court agreed with the GAL, pointing 

out that the legislative history of § 43-247(8) showed that it 

“speak[s] to a factual pattern different from what we have here 

today” and explained that the children were already in a protective placement with DHHS. The court stated that § 43-247(8) 

was enacted so that a juvenile court could reestablish jurisdiction over a juvenile after its jurisdiction had been terminated, 

but that in this case, it had retained jurisdiction over the children after the guardianship was terminated.

Therefore, the court sustained the GAL’s motion to dismiss 

the State’s second petition. The court also ruled that as a result 

of the dismissal, the GAL’s objection to setting the matter for 
- 533 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF MEKHI S. ET AL.

Cite as 309 Neb. 529

adjudication became moot. On November 4, 2020, the court’s 

written order dismissing the second petition was entered.

The State filed a timely appeal. We moved the appeal to 

our docket. 1

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

The State’s brief does not contain a separate section assigning error to the juvenile court. While the brief’s argument 

section does contain at least one heading purporting to assign 

error, we have emphasized that such headings do not satisfy the 

requirements of our appellate rules. 2 This affects our standard 

of review. 3

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Where the assignments of error consist of headings or 

subparts of arguments and are not within a designated assignments of error section, an appellate court may proceed as 

though the party failed to file a brief, providing no review 

at all, or, alternatively, may examine the proceedings for 

plain error. 4

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

of law. 5

ANALYSIS

[3,4] Before we can review the record for plain error, we 

must first determine that we have jurisdiction of the appeal. 

In a juvenile case, as in any other appeal, before reaching the 

legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate 

1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(2) and (3) (Cum. Supp. 2020).

2 See Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(1) (rev. 2014).

3 See Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916, 958 

N.W.2d 378 (2021).

4 Id.

5 In re Interest of Zachary B., 299 Neb. 187, 907 N.W.2d 311 (2018).
- 534 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF MEKHI S. ET AL.

Cite as 309 Neb. 529

court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter 

before it. 6 For an appellate court to acquire jurisdiction over 

an appeal, there must be a final order or final judgment entered 

by the court from which the appeal is taken. 7 Among the types 

of final orders which may be reviewed on appeal is an order 

that affects a substantial right made during a special proceeding. 8 Juvenile court proceedings are special proceedings. 9 So, 

we must determine whether the order dismissing the State’s 

second petition affected a substantial right.

Clearly, the State has a substantial right in these proceedings. The State’s right in juvenile proceedings is derived from 

its parens patriae interest, and it is pursuant to that interest that 

the State has enacted the Nebraska Juvenile Code. 10 The State 

has a right to protect the welfare of its resident children, and 

we have observed that “‘[o]ne would be hard pressed to cite a 

governmental interest of greater import.’” 11

[5,6] However, it is not enough that the right itself be substantial; the effect of the order on that right must also be substantial. 12 Whether the effect of an order is substantial depends 

on “whether it affects with finality the rights of the parties in 

the subject matter.” 13

The State misinterprets § 43-247(8). It contends that 

this subsection required it to file a second petition after the 

6 Id.

7 In re Interest of Michael N., 302 Neb. 652, 925 N.W.2d 51 (2019).

8 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2020).

9 See In re Interest of Zachary B., supra note 5.

10 In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764, 891 N.W.2d 109 (2017).

11 Id. (quoting In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405, 470 N.W.2d 780 (1991), 

disapproved on other grounds, O’Connor v. Kaufman, 255 Neb. 120, 582 

N.W.2d 350 (1998)).

12 See In re Interest of Noah B. et al., supra note 10.

13 Id. at 774, 891 N.W.2d at 119 (quoting Deines v. Essex Corp., 293 Neb. 

577, 879 N.W.2d 30 (2016)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
- 535 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF MEKHI S. ET AL.

Cite as 309 Neb. 529

guardianship was terminated in order to reinstate the juvenile 

court’s jurisdiction over the children. But § 43-247(8) was 

enacted by the Nebraska Legislature to provide an independent 

basis to reestablish a juvenile court’s jurisdiction over a juvenile where the juvenile court’s jurisdiction had ended. 14

As we explain below, another statute expressly preserves the 

juvenile court’s jurisdiction during a guardianship established 

pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-285 (Cum. Supp. 2020). Here, 

the parents’ rights have not been terminated, and Nebraska 

jurisprudence dictates that a juvenile court retains jurisdiction 

over a juvenile after it places the child in a guardianship. 15

Prior to 1998, county courts had exclusive jurisdiction over 

all guardianship matters, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-517(2) 

(Reissue 1995). 16 Thus, if the juvenile court ordered a permanency objective of legal guardianship for a juvenile who was 

then under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the pending 

juvenile proceedings were held in abeyance until guardianship 

proceedings could be filed and finalized in the county court, 

after which the juvenile court’s jurisdiction ended. 17 Such 

guardianships were typically accomplished pursuant to a section of the probate code. 18

After the statute was amended to grant juvenile courts 

concurrent original jurisdiction over guardianship proceedings, we stopped the practice of appointing guardians for 

14 See Judiciary Committee Hearing, L.B. 466, 97th Leg., 1st Sess. 20-23 

(Feb. 1, 2001).

15 See In re Guardianship of Rebecca B. et al., 260 Neb. 922, 621 N.W.2d 

289 (2000).

16 See id. See, also, In re Guardianship of Zyla, 251 Neb. 163, 555 N.W.2d 

768 (1996).

17 See, generally, In re Interest of Justin C. et al., 7 Neb. App. 251, 581 

N.W.2d 437 (1998). See, also, In re Guardianship of Alice D. et al., 4 Neb. 

App. 726, 548 N.W.2d 18 (1996).

18 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2608 (Reissue 1995). See, also, In re Guardianship 

of Alice D. et al., supra note 17.
- 536 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF MEKHI S. ET AL.

Cite as 309 Neb. 529

adjudicated juveniles through the probate code. 19 We explained 

that the legislative intent required that when a minor is 

adjudged to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, a 

guardianship appointment must be made pursuant to the juvenile code. 20 Further, we clarified that a county court’s jurisdiction will yield to the juvenile court’s exclusive jurisdiction 

over a guardianship proceeding once a minor is adjudged to be 

within its jurisdiction. 21

The Nebraska Court of Appeals built on our jurisprudence, 

explaining that a juvenile court retains jurisdiction over a 

juvenile in a guardianship, as a guardianship does not achieve 

the same degree of permanency as parenthood or adoption. 22

Soon after, the Legislature codified the Court of Appeals’ 

decision. 23

[7] Section 43-1312.01(3) requires that where a juvenile 

court places a child in a guardianship with an individual, the 

court shall retain jurisdiction over the child for modification 

or termination of the guardianship order. Here, when the court 

appointed the guardian, it expressly retained jurisdiction and 

did not terminate the proceedings. Thus, when the court terminated the guardianship and placed the children with DHHS, it 

already had jurisdiction of them. It was not necessary to invoke 

§ 43-247(8). The court’s dismissal of the second petition had 

no effect on the State’s ability to continue to assert its rights 

under its original petition.

Nothing in this opinion should be read to preclude the 

State from bringing a supplemental petition to raise new facts 

or allegations pertinent to the children’s best interests. We 

19 See In re Guardianship of Rebecca B. et al., supra note 15. See, also, 1998 

Neb. Laws, L.B. 1041.

20 Id.

21 See In re Guardianship of Rebecca B. et al., supra note 15.

22 In re Interest of Brianna B., 21 Neb. App. 657, 842 N.W.2d 191 (2014).

23 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1312.01(3) (Reissue 2016).
- 537 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF MEKHI S. ET AL.

Cite as 309 Neb. 529

merely reject the State’s argument that a supplemental petition 

was required here for the purpose it claimed—reestablishing 

jurisdiction. The court had always retained and had never lost 

jurisdiction of the children.

CONCLUSION

The State’s substantial rights in the proceedings were not 

substantially affected by the court’s dismissal of the second 

petition. Accordingly, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction. We 

therefore dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.