- 580 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P.

Cite as 304 Neb. 580

In re Interest of Giavonni P., a child 

under 18 years of age.

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Nebraska 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed November 22, 2019. Nos. S-18-1130, S-18-1135.

1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the juvenile court’s findings.

2. Statutes: Judgments: Appeal and Error. The meaning of a statute is a 

question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the 

trial court.

3. Judgments: Final Orders. Orders purporting to be final judgments, but 

that are dependent upon the occurrence of uncertain future events, do 

not necessarily operate as “judgments” and may be wholly ineffective 

and void as such.

4. ____: ____. A conditional judgment may be wholly void because it does 

not “perform in praesenti” and leaves to speculation and conjecture what 

its final effect may be.

5. ____: ____. While conditional orders will not automatically become 

final judgments upon the occurrence of the specified conditions, they 

can operate in conjunction with a further consideration of the court as 

to whether the conditions have been met, at which time a final judgment 

may be made.

6. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. The three types of final orders which 

may be reviewed on appeal are (1) an order affecting a substantial right 

in an action that, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment; (2) an order affecting a substantial right made during a special 

proceeding; and (3) an order affecting a substantial right made on summary application in an action after a judgment is rendered.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

12/06/2019 12:08 AM CST
- 581 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P.

Cite as 304 Neb. 580

7. Juvenile Courts: Words and Phrases. Juvenile court proceedings are 

special proceedings.

8. Moot Question: Jurisdiction. Mootness is a justiciability doctrine that 

operates to prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction.

9. Moot Question: Jurisdiction: Courts: Judgments: Dismissal and 

Nonsuit. An actual case or controversy is necessary for the exercise of 

judicial power. In the absence of an actual case or controversy requiring 

judicial resolution, it is not the function of the courts to render a judgment that is merely advisory. Therefore, as a general rule, a moot case is 

subject to summary dismissal.

10. Moot Question: Records: Appeal and Error. When a party or parties 

are aware that appellate issues have become moot during the pendency 

of the appeal and such mootness is not reflected in the record, in the 

interest of judicial economy, a party may file a suggestion of mootness 

as to the issue or issues claimed to be moot.

11. Moot Question. Mootness refers to events occurring after the filing 

of a suit which eradicate the requisite personal interest in the dispute’s 

resolution that existed at the beginning of the litigation.

12. Actions: Moot Question. An action becomes moot when the issues 

initially presented in the proceedings no longer exist or the parties lack 

a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the action.

13. Moot Question: Words and Phrases. A moot case is one which seeks 

to determine a question that no longer rests upon existing facts or 

rights—i.e., a case in which the issues presented are no longer alive.

14. Moot Question. The central question in a mootness analysis is whether 

changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation 

have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief.

15. Moot Question: Appeal and Error. Under certain circumstances, an 

appellate court may entertain the issues presented by a moot case when 

the claims presented involve a matter of great public interest or when 

other rights or liabilities may be affected by the case’s determination.

16. Moot Question: Words and Phrases. In determining whether the public interest exception should be invoked, a court considers the public or 

private nature of the question presented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public officials, and the likelihood of future recurrence of the same or a similar problem.

Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County: 

Christopher E. Kelly, Judge. Affirmed.

Neleigh N. Boyer and Marcie Bergquist, Special Assistant 

Attorneys General, of Nebraska Department of Health and 

Human Services, for appellant.
- 582 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P.

Cite as 304 Neb. 580

Jeffrey A. Wagner and Kyle J. Flentje, of Wagner, Meehan 

& Watson, L.L.P., for appellee.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Heavican, C.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Following orders of the Douglas County Separate Juvenile 

Court, Giavonni P. was placed at the Lincoln Regional Center 

(LRC). The Nebraska Department of Health and Human 

Services (Department) appeals. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

Giavonni was adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2016) in April 2010 and placed with 

the Department. He has been in a variety of placements since 

that time. In October 2017, Giavonni was adjudicated under 

§ 43-247(1) and placed at Capstone, a psychiatric residential 

treatment facility (PRTF) in Detroit, Michigan. In late 2017, 

Giavonni was also placed on probation with the office of 

juvenile probation following adjudication and disposition on a 

charge of theft by unlawful taking.

On October 9, 2018, Giavonni’s guardian ad litem filed a 

motion alleging that placement in the Capstone program was 

no longer in Giavonni’s best interests. The guardian ad litem 

requested that Giavonni be returned to Nebraska and placed at 

the LRC.

A hearing was held on that motion on October 22, 2018. 

The juvenile court ordered Giavonni returned to Nebraska 

and placed at the Douglas County Youth Center (DCYC) for 

secure detention. The juvenile court scheduled further placement review for November 9.

At the November 9, 2018, hearing, Giavonni was represented individually and also by a guardian ad litem. Giavonni’s 

father appeared with counsel, and Douglas County and the 

Department appeared with separate representation. On appeal, 
- 583 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P.

Cite as 304 Neb. 580

only the Department and the guardian ad litem filed briefs. The 

State (represented by Douglas County) waived oral argument. 

No other party has entered an appearance.

At the placement review hearing, Giavonni’s family permanency specialist reviewed Giavonni’s recent history. That history included flight from Capstone, the PRTF in Detroit; violent behavior toward other residents and staff at Capstone; and 

property destruction. In addition, while in Detroit, Giavonni 

refused to engage in therapy or take his medications. Another 

witness testified that Capstone was more like jail than a treatment center and reinforced Giavonni’s refusal to leave his 

room or to interact with others in any setting. The witness also 

reiterated that Giavonni was not taking his medications while 

at Capstone.

Upon his return to Nebraska and placement at the DCYC, 

Giavonni was again involved with acts of aggression. He 

had not met with a therapist, but was apparently taking his 

medication.

Other evidence presented showed that there were concerns 

with placing Giavonni at any facility which was not secure and 

which would require him to have a roommate, due to the fact 

that he was a flight risk and was aggressive. A psychiatrist testified that Giavonni needed treatment in a locked facility such 

as an adolescent PRTF, medical stabilization, and placement 

in a community setting. There was evidence that there were 

only approximately 20 facilities in the United States that met 

Giavonni’s treatment criteria. Of the facilities that responded to 

an inquiry, none was able to admit Giavonni, either because of 

his violent history or because of space constraints.

Following the hearing, the juvenile court entered an order 

in each case stating that if Giavonni was not placed in a PRTF 

by November 26, 2018, the Douglas County sheriff should 

deliver him to the LRC, where he was to remain until a PRTF 

placement could be found. On November 27, the court was 

advised at a placement check hearing that Giavonni had been 

placed at the LRC.
- 584 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P.

Cite as 304 Neb. 580

The Department filed a notice of appeal in each case on 

December 3, 2018, indicating that it appealed from the juvenile court’s November 9 order (the notice of appeal is dated 

November 28, 2018). On May 6, 2019, Giavonni was moved 

from the LRC into a new placement. Prior to oral arguments, 

the guardian ad litem filed a suggestion of mootness, which 

we denied.

III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

The Department assigns that the juvenile court erred in 

ordering that Giavonni (1)(a) be placed at the LRC (b) on a 

specific date and (2) remain at the LRC until further order of 

the court or until a placement was unanimously agreed upon 

by the parties.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on 

the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the 

juvenile court’s findings.1 The meaning of a statute is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of 

the trial court.2

V. ANALYSIS

The Department appeals from the orders of the juvenile 

court placing Giavonni at the LRC. While its argument varies 

slightly based on the underlying adjudication (law violation 

versus neglect), the crux of the Department’s assertion is that 

the placement orders usurped the LRC’s statutory authority to administer and manage its patient admission and discharge process.

1. Final Order

In each case, the guardian ad litem argues that this court 

lacks a final order, both because the juvenile court’s order was 

1 In re Interest of Reality W., 302 Neb. 878, 925 N.W.2d 355 (2019).

2 Id.
- 585 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P.

Cite as 304 Neb. 580

conditional and because that order did not affect a substantial 

right. We conclude that the order in each case is final.

(a) Conditional Order

The guardian ad litem first argues that the juvenile court’s 

order in each case was not final because it was conditional: at 

the time the order was entered, no one knew “when or even 

whether Giavonni would be accepted by a [PRTF] and if no 

such facility arose, there is no direction given by the court, 

creating speculation and conjecture, making such order a conditional judgment.”3

[3-5] Orders purporting to be final judgments, but that are 

dependent upon the occurrence of uncertain future events, do 

not necessarily operate as “judgments” and may be wholly 

ineffective and void as such.4 We have explained that a conditional judgment may be wholly void because it does not 

“perform in praesenti” and leaves to speculation and conjecture 

what its final effect may be.5 We have also explained that while 

conditional orders will not automatically become final judgments upon the occurrence of the specified conditions, they can 

operate in conjunction with a further consideration of the court 

as to whether the conditions have been met, at which time a 

final judgment may be made.6

The juvenile court’s order in each case stated that the 

Department and Giavonni’s probation officer should seek 

“appropriate secure [PRTF] placement” and that “if . . . 

Giavonni . . . is not accepted for placement by November 26, 

2018[,] . . . then [he] shall be . . . delivered by the Douglas 

County Sheriff to the [LRC] in Lincoln, Nebraska.” The court 

went on to order that Giavonni “remain in the [LRC] . . . until 

. . . accepted for placement at an accredited, secure [PRTF], 

3 Brief for appellee guardian ad litem in case No. S-18-1130 at 14.

4 Jensen v. Jensen, 275 Neb. 921, 750 N.W.2d 335 (2008).

5 Id.

6 Id.
- 586 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P.

Cite as 304 Neb. 580

contingent on written approval” of the guardian ad litem, the 

Department, and Giavonni’s probation officer, attorney, and 

treatment team, or, “lacking such unanimous approval, until 

further Order of the Court.” And on November 27, 2018, the 

day after Giavonni was moved to the LRC, a placement check 

hearing was held, at which time an order acknowledging 

Giavonni’s placement and the setting of the next hearing date 

were entered in each case.

In each case, when considering the November 27, 2018, 

order in light of the November 9 order, it is clear that the 

juvenile court’s order is not conditional. There is no merit to 

this argument.

(b) Order Affecting 

Substantial Right

The guardian ad litem also argues that the juvenile court’s 

order in each case was not final because it did not affect a substantial right of the Department.

[6] Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 2016), the 

three types of final orders that may be reviewed on appeal 

are (1) an order affecting a substantial right in an action that, 

in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment; (2) 

an order affecting a substantial right made during a special 

proceeding; and (3) an order affecting a substantial right 

made on summary application in an action after a judgment 

is rendered.

[7] Juvenile court proceedings are special proceedings.7

Thus, to have a final order a juvenile court’s order must affect 

a substantial right. We conclude herein that the juvenile court’s 

order in each case does affect a substantial right in that it 

affects the Department’s ability, through its role of directing 

behavioral services, to administer admissions and care at the 

LRC.8 As such, the order in each case is final.

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

8 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 71-806 and 83-109 (Cum. Supp. 2018).
- 587 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P.

Cite as 304 Neb. 580

2. Mootness

Since the Department filed its appeals, Giavonni has been 

moved out of the LRC and into an out-of-state PRTF. As such, 

Giavonni’s guardian ad litem filed in each appeal a motion to 

dismiss on the ground of mootness. The Department agrees that 

Giavonni’s appeals may be moot but, in its response, directed 

us to a list of other juveniles who have been ordered to the 

LRC. The Department asked that we utilize the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine to address the question 

presented by these appeals.

[8-10] Mootness is a justiciability doctrine that operates to 

prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction.9 An actual case or 

controversy is necessary for the exercise of judicial power.10

In the absence of an actual case or controversy requiring judicial resolution, it is not the function of the courts to render 

a judgment that is merely advisory.11 Therefore, as a general 

rule, a moot case is subject to summary dismissal.12 It is well 

established that when a party or parties are aware that appellate 

issues have become moot during the pendency of the appeal 

and such mootness is not reflected in the record, in the interest 

of judicial economy, a party may file a suggestion of mootness 

in the Nebraska Supreme Court or Nebraska Court of Appeals 

as to the issue or issues claimed to be moot.13

[11-14] Mootness refers to events occurring after the filing of a suit which eradicate the requisite personal interest 

in the dispute’s resolution that existed at the beginning of the 

litigation.14 An action becomes moot when the issues initially 

presented in the proceedings no longer exist or the parties lack 

9 State ex rel. Peterson v. Ebke, 303 Neb. 637, 930 N.W.2d 551 (2019).

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 Id.
- 588 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P.

Cite as 304 Neb. 580

a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the action.15 A 

moot case is one which seeks to determine a question that no 

longer rests upon existing facts or rights—i.e., a case in which 

the issues presented are no longer alive.16 The central question 

in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances 

that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any 

occasion for meaningful relief.

[15,16] Under certain circumstances, an appellate court may 

entertain the issues presented by a moot case when the claims 

presented involve a matter of great public interest or when 

other rights or liabilities may be affected by the case’s determination.17 In determining whether the public interest exception 

should be invoked, the court considers the public or private 

nature of the question presented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public officials, 

and the likelihood of future recurrence of the same or a similar problem.18

Following the filing of these appeals, the guardian ad litem 

filed a suggestion of mootness and motion to dismiss in each 

appeal, noting that Giavonni had been moved from the LRC to 

a PRTF located outside of the state. Because the purpose of the 

Department’s appeals was to challenge Giavonni’s placement 

at the LRC, and because Giavonni was no longer placed at the 

LRC, we agree that the appeals are moot.

But we also agree with the Department that given that 

other juveniles are being placed at the LRC (or indeed that 

Giavonni could be returned to the LRC) due to a lack of 

other adequate programming, we should reach the merits of 

these appeals under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 Id.
- 589 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P.

Cite as 304 Neb. 580

3. Authority of Juvenile Court

The primary issue on appeal in each case is whether the 

juvenile court had the authority to place Giavonni at the LRC, 

on a date certain or otherwise. We find two particular statutes 

dispositive in reaching this conclusion.

Most relevant to this inquiry is Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-285(1) 

(Cum. Supp. 2018). We have interpreted § 43-285(1) to give 

juvenile courts the power to assent to and dissent from the 

decisions of the Department; the purpose of § 43-285(1) was 

to remove from the Department’s complete control a minor 

whose care was given to the Department under the juvenile 

code. The juvenile court has the power to assent to or dissent from the “care, placement, medical services, psychiatric 

services, training, and expenditures on behalf of each juvenile 

committed to it.”19

Also of note is Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-289 (Reissue 2016), 

which provides:

The court may, when the health or condition of any 

juvenile adjudged to be within the terms of such code 

shall require it, cause the juvenile to be placed in a 

public hospital or institution for treatment or special 

care or in an accredited and suitable private hospital or 

institution which will receive the juvenile for like purposes. Whenever any juvenile has been committed to the 

Department . . . , the [D]epartment shall follow the court’s 

orders, if any, concerning the juvenile’s specific needs 

for treatment or special care for his or her physical wellbeing and healthy personality.

So, § 43-285(1) gives a juvenile court the power to assent to, 

among other things, “care, placement, [and] psychiatric services,” and § 43-289 takes this one step further in allowing a 

court to order that a juvenile be placed in a “public hospital or 

institution for treatment or special care.” In the circumstances 

presented by Giavonni’s cases, the juvenile court did not agree 

19 § 43-285(1).
- 590 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P.

Cite as 304 Neb. 580

with the Department’s decisions with respect to Giavonni’s 

care and placement. At the time of the hearing, Giavonni 

was placed at the DCYC. The juvenile court concluded that 

Giavonni would best be served with a placement in a PRTF, 

but that failing that, the best placement for the safety of both 

Giavonni and others was at the LRC. The juvenile court had 

the authority to order this placement.

(a) Authority of LRC to House 

and Treat Juveniles

We turn next to the Department’s contention that the juvenile court’s placement was outside its authority because the 

juvenile code prohibits juveniles from being placed in a detention facility—whether juvenile or adult.

We reject this contention because it assumes that the LRC 

is a detention facility, when Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-911 (Reissue 

2018) defines it as a hospital.20 We also observe that in contrast to the Department’s argument regarding this on appeal, 

the Department suggested at oral arguments that the DCYC, 

a juvenile detention facility, might be a placement choice 

for Giavonni.

The Department’s arguments are without merit.

(b) Authority of LRC to Admit 

and Discharge Patients

The Department next argues that the juvenile court has 

interfered with the authority of the Department and the LRC to 

prioritize admissions and decide upon patient discharges from 

the LRC. The Department also notes that even if the juvenile 

court has the general authority to place a juvenile at the LRC, 

it does not have the ability to do so on a date certain.

Section 71-806(1) directs the Department’s division of 

behavioral health to “act as the chief behavioral health authority for the State of Nebraska, and [to] direct the administration 

20 See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-305 (Reissue 2014).
- 591 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P.

Cite as 304 Neb. 580

and coordination of the public behavioral health system, 

including, but not limited to . . . [a]dministration and management of the division, regional centers, and any other facilities and programs operated by the division.” Section 83-109 

states:

The Department . . . shall have general control over 

the admission of patients and residents to all institutions 

over which it has jurisdiction. . . . Transfers of patients or 

residents from one institution to another shall be within 

the exclusive jurisdiction of the [D]epartment and shall 

be recorded in the office of the [D]epartment, with the 

reasons for such transfers.

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-338 (Reissue 2014) sets priorities for 

admission to hospitals for the mentally ill. The last paragraph 

of § 43-289 notes that “[a] juvenile committed to any such 

institution shall be subject to the control of the superintendent 

thereof . . . .”

We concluded above that the juvenile court has the authority to place an individual at the LRC. These statutes do not 

change that result. Contrary to the Department’s contention, 

we do not read the juvenile court’s order in each case to place 

Giavonni at the LRC on a date certain. Rather, the juvenile 

court ordered Giavonni placed in an appropriate PRTF by 

November 26, 2018; failing that, Giavonni was to be placed 

at the LRC. There is no merit to the Department’s arguments. 

We emphasize, however, that our opinion should not be read to 

allow courts to prioritize some individuals over others in the 

admissions and placement process for the LRC.

(c) Best Interests

Finally, the Department argues that Giavonni’s best interests 

are not being served by his placement at the LRC, observing 

that such a placement was similar to the jail-like conditions at 

Capstone. At the placement review hearing, the Department 

suggested that placement at a youth rehabilitation and treatment center would be appropriate, but it did not renew that 
- 592 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

304 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P.

Cite as 304 Neb. 580

argument on appeal. At oral arguments, the Department suggested that Giavonni should remain at the DCYC until a bed at 

an appropriate PRTF could be located.

There was evidence at the hearing that the LRC was a 

secure facility with the ability to provide Giavonni with the 

psychiatric treatment he needed while allowing him to stay in 

a single room, keeping himself and others safe. While we agree 

that an adult facility is not the optimal choice for a juvenile 

offender, given the lack of other options and Giavonni’s needs, 

placement at the LRC was in his best interests at the time of 

his placement.

VI. CONCLUSION

The decision of the juvenile court in each case is affirmed.

Affirmed.