- 108 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF JILL G.

Cite as 312 Neb. 108

In re Guardianship of Jill G., 

an incapacitated person.

Debra R., appellant, v. Jill G., appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed July 29, 2022. No. S-21-586.

1. Estates: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews probate cases 

for error appearing on the record made in the county court.

2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a judgment for errors 

appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms 

to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, 

capricious, nor unreasonable.

3. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a question of 

law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court.

4. Guardians Ad Litem: Words and Phrases. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-4204 

(Reissue 2016) empowers the guardian ad litem to obtain information as 

part of his or her investigation and permits for the admissibility of information so collected. By its plain terms, § 30-4204 addresses “material 

obtained by a guardian ad litem” and does not pertain to a report created 

by a guardian ad litem.

5. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory language is to be given its plain 

and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, 

direct, and unambiguous.

6. Statutes: Intent. When interpreting a statute, the starting point and 

focus of the inquiry is the meaning of the statutory language, understood 

in context.

7. Statutes: Words and Phrases. The placement of a statutory word 

proximate to a provision which it describes informs our interpretation of 

the statute.

8. Trial: Evidence. When part of an exhibit is inadmissible, a trial court 

has discretion to reject the exhibit entirely or to admit the admissible 

portion.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

08/26/2022 01:05 AM CDT
- 109 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF JILL G.

Cite as 312 Neb. 108

9. Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Because it is the proponent’s 

responsibility to separate the admissible and inadmissible parts when 

offering evidence, an appellate court will ordinarily uphold a court’s 

exclusion of an exhibit if the proponent did not properly limit its offer 

to the part or parts that are admissible.

Appeal from the County Court for Douglas County: 

Marcena M. Hendrix, Judge. Affirmed.

Andrew Schill, of Legal Aid of Nebraska, for appellant.

James Walter Crampton for appellee.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Miller-Lerman, J.

NATURE OF CASE

Debra R., the appellant, sought to have the Office of Public 

Guardian appointed as guardian over her daughter, Jill G., 

the appellee. The county court for Douglas County ultimately 

dismissed the petition for appointment of a guardian without 

prejudice. Debra appeals. She contends that a report created 

by the guardian ad item (GAL) pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 30-4205 (Reissue 2016) should have been admitted into evidence and that in combination with the testimony of the GAL, 

the evidence would support creation of a guardianship over 

Jill. We conclude that exclusion of the report was not error and 

accordingly affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Jill is the alleged incapacitated person in this matter. In 

August 2019, Jill was arrested for trespassing and destroying 

property in a church. She remained in the Douglas County jail 

until August 2020, when she was released to a recovery center. Thereafter, Debra petitioned to have the Office of Public 

Guardian appointed as guardian over Jill. The county court 

appointed Debra as temporary guardian and appointed a GAL 

and separate counsel for Jill.
- 110 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF JILL G.

Cite as 312 Neb. 108

On May 17, 2021, the GAL filed a notice of availability of a 

report (sometimes referred to herein as “the GAL report”). The 

GAL report at the center of this appeal consisted of eight pages 

and was supported by an affidavit. Attached to the report were 

approximately 80 pages of information and material obtained 

by the GAL pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-4204 (Reissue 

2016) regarding, inter alia, Jill’s medical history. Trial was held 

on June 15.

At trial, Debra testified to Jill’s medical history and diagnoses. She described a cycle of Jill’s taking medications, 

improving, ceasing medication, and then returning to a medical facility.

The GAL testified that she conducted an investigation of 

Jill, which included phone conversations with Jill; a document 

review, including over 80 pages of medical records; and a 

report from Jill’s medical provider concerning the seven areas 

relevant to a guardianship. The GAL testified that, based on 

her investigation summarized in her report, she recommended 

Jill have a guardian. She stated that the written eight-page 

GAL report was her business record of her investigation and 

that it was supported by an affidavit. At several points during the hearing, Debra offered the GAL report, including the 

attached informational documents as evidence, but each time, 

the court sustained Jill’s objections on the basis that the statements were hearsay and lacked foundation. The court also 

declined to take judicial notice of the GAL report. At no time 

did Debra offer the GAL report and informational material 

attached thereto separately.

Jill testified at trial that she did not want to have a guardianship. She testified that a previous guardianship had been dismissed in early 2018 and that she was taking medications daily. 

She testified she was living in the home of her deceased aunt 

and fixing up the house. Her father paid for utilities and gave 

her a vehicle. She testified that she would continue to take care 

of herself without a guardian.
- 111 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF JILL G.

Cite as 312 Neb. 108

On June 15, 2021, the county court entered a journal entry 

that granted Jill’s motion to dismiss because Debra had failed 

to make a prima facie case for appointment of a permanent 

guardian.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Debra assigns, summarized and restated, that the county 

court erred when it failed to admit the GAL report into evidence and when it dismissed her petition for appointment of a 

guardian for Jill.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

[1,2] An appellate court reviews probate cases for error 

appearing on the record made in the county court. In re 

Guardianship & Conservatorship of J.F., 307 Neb. 452, 949 

N.W.2d 496 (2020). When reviewing a judgment for errors 

appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision 

conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and 

is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Id.

[3] Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which an 

appellate court resolves independently of the trial court. In re 

Estate of Larson, 311 Neb. 352, 972 N.W.2d 891 (2022).

ANALYSIS

Debra argues that the GAL report was improperly excluded 

from evidence, because the GAL statutes revised in 2016 show 

“clear intent of allowing both the report of the GAL and the 

fruits of the GAL’s investigation into evidence.” Brief for 

appellant at 11. Debra contends that by statute, the county 

court was obligated to admit the GAL report for the purpose 

of evaluating the question of creating a guardianship, and that 

the report was material. We conclude that the county court correctly analyzed the GAL report as inadmissible hearsay, and 

thus, we affirm.

Several relevant statutes, including the GAL statutes amended 

in 2016, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 30-4201 to 30-4210 (Reissue 2016), 

control our analysis. Consistent with §§ 30-4201 to 30-4210, in 

a guardianship proceeding, the court may appoint a GAL to 
- 112 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF JILL G.

Cite as 312 Neb. 108

advocate for the best interests of the person alleged to be incapacitated. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2619(b) (Reissue 2016). A GAL 

appointed pursuant to the Nebraska Probate Code must be an 

attorney in good standing admitted to the practice of law in the 

State of Nebraska and meet any other requirements, including 

training, imposed by the Supreme Court. See § 30-4202(1). 

Regarding its 2016 amendments, the Legislature explained 

as follows:

The Legislature finds that it is in the best interests of 

persons under disability and the public for the authorities 

and responsibilities of a [GAL] to be expanded to include 

an objective investigation and assessment of the needs 

of a person who comes before the court in any guardianship, conservatorship, or other protective proceeding to 

ensure the protection of the rights of the person who is 

the subject of the proceeding. The Legislature also finds 

that the public is benefited from having trustworthy and 

competent guardians and conservators appointed for incapacitated persons, wards, protected persons, and minors.

§ 30-4201. To this end, the Legislature set forth various 

expanded duties and powers of a GAL. With respect to the 

evidentiary issue in this case, a GAL is required to, inter alia, 

investigate, gather information regarding, and make an assessment of the condition of the person for whom he or she has 

been appointed to represent and report to the court the condition of such person. See § 30-4203(1)(b). The written report 

addresses whether the person for whom the guardianship is 

sought is an incapacitated person, and it further addresses the 

scope of a limited guardianship or why a full guardianship is 

necessary to protect the best interests of the incapacitated person. See § 30-4205.

Section 30-4204 provides the statutory authority for the 

GAL to obtain certain information, informally or by subpoena, 

about the person for whom the GAL has been appointed, 

including “report[s] from any medical provider, provider of 

psychological services, law enforcement, adult protective services agency, or financial institution; and . . . any account or 
- 113 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF JILL G.

Cite as 312 Neb. 108

record of any business, corporation, partnership, or other business entity which such person owns or in which such person 

has an interest.” Of particular interest in this appeal is the 

concluding provision in § 30-4204, which states that “[a]ny 

material obtained by a [GAL] pursuant to this section is admissible in evidence.” (Emphasis supplied.) Debra relies primarily 

on this provision of § 30-4204 pertaining to gathered materials 

as the basis of her claim that the GAL report which the GAL 

authored should have been admitted into evidence. We do not 

agree with Debra’s reading of the statute.

Historically, in other contexts, we have observed that GAL 

reports are hearsay and, whether in written form or testimony by the GAL, are subject to the rules of evidence. We 

have stated that “‘a report is not somehow made admissible 

because it was prepared by a [GAL] appointed by a court 

pursuant to a statute.’” Betz v. Betz, 254 Neb. 341, 347, 575 

N.W.2d 406, 410 (1998). We have applied the principle that 

in the absence of admissibility authorized by the Nebraska 

Evidence Rules or by other statute as a nonhearsay statement or statements otherwise exempted or excluded from 

the operation or purview of the “hearsay rule,” Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 27-802 (Reissue 2016), a hearsay statement will be 

excluded. See, generally, State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40, 891 

N.W.2d 663 (2017). See, also, Heistand v. Heistand, 267 Neb. 

300, 673 N.W.2d 541 (2004).

[4-7] Debra contends that the GAL statutes set forth above 

create a statutory exception to the rules of evidence, rendering 

the GAL report admissible into evidence. We do not agree. Of 

the GAL statutes referenced above, only § 30-4204 concerns 

admissibility of GAL materials in court. Section 30-4204, 

which empowers the GAL to obtain information as part of 

his or her investigation, only permits for the admissibility 

of information so collected. By its plain terms, § 30-4204 

addresses “material obtained by a [GAL]” and does not pertain to a report created by a GAL. Statutory language is to be 

given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court 

will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of 
- 114 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF JILL G.

Cite as 312 Neb. 108

statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. In re 

Adoption of Yasmin S., 308 Neb. 771, 956 N.W.2d 704 (2021). 

When interpreting a statute, the starting point and focus of the 

inquiry is the meaning of the statutory language, understood 

in context. Parks v. Hy-Vee, 307 Neb. 927, 951 N.W.2d 504 

(2020). The placement of the admissibility provision proximate to the statutory authority to gather information informs 

our conclusion that the admissibility provision is directed 

to the information so gathered. Specifically, the placement 

of the admissibility provision in the guardianship statutes 

at § 30-4204, which provides for the gathering of information to present to the court, supports our conclusion that the 

admissibility provision of § 30-4204 is directed toward that 

information and not the separate report, the creation of which 

is authorized by § 30-4205. If the Legislature had wanted the 

GAL report prepared under § 30-4205 to be admissible, it 

could have so provided. Compare § 30-4204 (providing for 

admissibility of information gathered). Contrary to Debra’s 

assertion, § 30-4204 does not address the evidentiary issue surrounding the report authored by the GAL as distinguished from 

the material collected, and we further observe that such report 

may contain impressions of the GAL implicating additional 

layers of opinion and hearsay and their attendant admissibility challenges. It was not error for the county court to sustain 

objections to the GAL report as hearsay.

[8,9] As noted, the product of the GAL’s work included 

both the recommendation of the GAL contained in the GAL 

report and informational material attached thereto, the latter 

of which the GAL had gathered pursuant to § 30-4204. We 

have carefully examined the record, noting that the county 

court was not asked to rule separately on the admissibility of 

medical records and other information attached to the GAL 

report as distinguished from the report itself. When part of an 

exhibit is inadmissible, a trial court has discretion to reject 

the exhibit entirely or to admit the admissible portion. Arens 

v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015). Because 

it is the proponent’s responsibility to separate the admissible 
- 115 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

312 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF JILL G.

Cite as 312 Neb. 108

and inadmissible parts when offering evidence, an appellate 

court will ordinarily uphold a court’s exclusion of an exhibit 

if the proponent did not properly limit its offer to the part 

or parts that are admissible. Id. Specifically, the court was 

not asked to admit the informational material only, pursuant 

to § 30-4204, and we therefore do not consider whether the 

addition of such evidence would have been sufficient had the 

informational material been properly before the court.

For completeness, we note that, relying on Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 30-2619.04 (Reissue 2016), Debra also contends that Jill 

waived objections to the admissibility of the GAL report by 

failing to respond to it within 10 judicial days. We reject 

this argument. Section 30-2619.04 provides that “[t]he petitioner and the proposed ward shall have ten judicial days 

to file responses to the visitor’s evaluation report.” Debra’s 

reliance on the court visitor report statutes is misplaced and 

unavailing. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 30-2619.01 to 30-2619.04 

(Reissue 2016). The plain language of § 30-2619.04 applies 

to visitor reports, and this case concerns a GAL report. 

We have acknowledged that procedural comparisons may be 

drawn between the GAL reports and visitor reports in the 

Supreme Court rules for the nomination of the Office of the 

Public Guardian. See Neb. Ct. R. 6-1433.01 (2015). However, 

because § 30-2619.04 does not apply to reports by a GAL, this 

statute does not limit the time during which a party may object 

to a GAL report.

Having reviewed the admitted evidence, we do not find that 

the county court erred when it granted Jill’s motion to dismiss 

Debra’s petition for the appointment of a guardian.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the order of the district court that dismissed Debra’s petition for appointment of a 

guardian for Jill.

Affirmed.