- 848 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSEPH C.

Cite as 299 Neb. 848

In re Interest of Joseph C., a child

under 18 years of age.

State of Nebraska, appellee, 

v. Tina E., appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed May 4, 2018. No. S-17-961.

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

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. 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. Under the doctrine of standing, a court may decline to determine merits of a legal claim because the party advancing it is not properly situated to be entitled to its judicial determination.

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: Standing: Appeal and Error. In assessing standing, 

the right of appeal in a juvenile case in Nebraska is purely statutory.

8. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. A court gives statutory language its 

plain and ordinary meaning and will not look beyond the statute to 

determine the legislative intent when the words are plain, direct, and 

unambiguous.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

07/27/2018 09:10 AM CDT
- 849 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSEPH C.

Cite as 299 Neb. 848

Appeal from the County Court for Lincoln County: Kent D. 

Turnbull, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

James R. Korth and Brock J. Pohlmeier, of Reynolds, Korth 

& Samuelson, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

Rebecca Harling, Lincoln County Attorney, for appellee.

Michael L. Nozicka, of Nozicka Law Office, guardian 

ad litem.

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

JJ., and Derr and Urbom, District Judges.

Derr, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

This appeal arises from termination proceedings for Joseph 

C. in the county court for Lincoln County, sitting as a juvenile court. Tina E., the biological aunt and adoptive sister of 

Joseph’s father, appeals the juvenile court’s order which held 

that Joseph’s placement with his nonrelative foster parents and 

permanency through adoption by them was in his best interests. Because Tina lacks standing pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-2,106.01(2) (Reissue 2016), her appeal is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

Joseph, born in May 2009, is the biological child of Dana 

C. and Michael E. On June 10, 2015, the State, represented 

by the county attorney, filed a petition alleging that Joseph, 

then age 6, was a child within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-247(3)(a) (Cum. Supp. 2014). Following an adjudication hearing on September 1, the juvenile court determined 

Joseph to be a child as defined by § 43-247(3)(a) (Supp. 2015). 

The State later initiated proceedings to terminate Dana’s and 

Michael’s parental rights.

After being removed from the care and custody of his 

parents, Joseph had two different family placements. Joseph 
- 850 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSEPH C.

Cite as 299 Neb. 848

was initially placed with his maternal grandparents, but that 

placement was disrupted when the grandparents’ home study 

was denied. Subsequently, Joseph was placed in Colorado with 

his maternal aunt and uncle. He remained there from August 

28, 2015, to June 18, 2016. However, Joseph exhibited behavioral issues at home and at school, and he was removed at the 

request of the maternal aunt and uncle, who could not handle 

Joseph’s needs.

On June 18, 2016, Joseph was placed in the agency-based 

foster home of Heather F. and Kevin F. in Nebraska. Ten days 

later, on June 28, the juvenile court filed its order terminating 

the parental rights of Joseph’s biological parents pursuant to 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(1), (2), and (6) (Reissue 2016) and in 

accordance with Joseph’s best interests.

On June 30, 2016, 2 days after the termination of parental 

rights, Tina was located through a “Family Finding” contract 

with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services 

(the Department). Tina, who lives in Wyoming with her husband, Rodney E., is the biological aunt of Joseph’s father, 

Michael. Tina’s parents adopted Michael; therefore, in addition 

to being Michael’s biological aunt, Tina is Michael’s adoptive sister.

Tina was unaware of Joseph’s existence until July 2016, not 

long after Dana’s and Michael’s parental rights were terminated. Tina immediately made efforts through the Department 

to be involved in Joseph’s life.

In December 2016, the Department completed a home study 

for Tina and Rodney, and they were approved for placement 

in January 2017. Upon the recommendation of Joseph’s therapist, Joseph was slowly introduced to the concept of Tina and 

Rodney through their letters and pictures. Tina was allowed to 

meet Joseph in person for the first time on February 7, 2017, 7 

months after she learned of his existence.

Following a status hearing on February 7, 2017, the juvenile court adopted the Department’s recommendation that 

Joseph remain in his current placement with Heather and 
- 851 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSEPH C.

Cite as 299 Neb. 848

Kevin and that the matter be continued to allow the integration of Tina and Rodney into his life with the goal of placing 

him with them. Tina and Rodney continued to have periodic 

visitation with Joseph.

On May 2, 2017, the juvenile court conducted a review hearing. It adopted the case plan and court report recommending 

eventual placement with Tina and Rodney, modified to include 

the recommendations of Joseph’s therapist as to the process of 

working toward placement with them.

On June 21, 2017, the juvenile court held a placement 

hearing. The Department sought a change in Joseph’s placement based on a material change in circumstances, i.e., the 

discovery of Tina, a family member willing and qualified 

to adopt Joseph. The State and Joseph’s guardian ad litem 

opposed placement with Tina. Tina attended the hearing without counsel and made no motion to intervene. Following 

the hearing, the juvenile court took the matter of placement 

under advisement.

On August 4, 2017, the juvenile court filed an order finding that, even assuming the Department had proved a material 

change in circumstances, the “current placement is in Joseph’s 

best interest and that permanency through adoption with his 

foster parents [is] in Joseph’s best interest.” In so finding, the 

juvenile court noted that it was not concerned about any fault 

or infirmity of relative placement and that Joseph’s time in 

foster care was not a reason, in and of itself, to deny placement 

with Tina. However, the juvenile court observed that “allowing a change of placement is the real and present danger to 

Joseph’s long term mental stability due to his current mental 

health fragility as a result of multiple changes in placements 

relative to his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.” The juvenile 

court determined that any further delay in permanency would 

destabilize Joseph’s mental health. The juvenile court set the 

matter for review on October 3 and ordered the Department to 

prepare a case plan consistent with the order.

Tina timely filed her notice of appeal.
- 852 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSEPH C.

Cite as 299 Neb. 848

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Tina assigns that the juvenile court erred in (1) changing the 

permanency objective from “reunification” with her to adoption by Heather and Kevin and (2) failing to change Joseph’s 

placement from Heather and Kevin to Tina.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

the record and reaches a conclusion independently of the juvenile court’s findings.1

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

of law.2

ANALYSIS

[3] On appeal, Tina challenges the order of the juvenile 

court that found it was in Joseph’s best interests to continue 

placement with Heather and Kevin and to change the permanency plan from adoption by Tina and Rodney to adoption by 

Heather and Kevin. 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

 The State and the guardian 

ad litem argue that Tina lacks standing to appeal the juvenile 

court’s order. This court agrees.

[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.4 Under the doctrine of standing, a court may decline to determine merits of a legal claim 

because the party advancing it is not properly situated to be 

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

(2015).

2 In re Interest of Becka P. et al., 296 Neb. 365, 894 N.W.2d 247 (2017).

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

4 In re Interest of Jackson E., 293 Neb. 84, 875 N.W.2d 863 (2016).
- 853 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSEPH C.

Cite as 299 Neb. 848

entitled to its judicial determination.5 Standing is a jurisdictional component of a party’s case, because only a party who 

has standing may invoke the jurisdiction of a court.6

[7] In assessing standing, this court has stated that the right 

of appeal in a juvenile case in Nebraska is purely statutory.7

This court’s recent cases have made clear that § 43-2,106.01, 

the juvenile code’s appeal statute, controls who has the right 

to appeal from a juvenile court’s placement order.8 Under 

§ 43-2,106.01(2), an appeal from a final order entered by a 

juvenile court may be taken by

(a) The juvenile;

(b) The guardian ad litem;

(c) The juvenile’s parent, custodian, or guardian. For 

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; or

(d) The county attorney or petitioner . . . .

Tina is not expressly included in any of these categories.

This court has previously addressed whether relatives not 

listed in § 43-2,106.01(2) have standing to appeal a juvenile 

court order.9 In In re Interest of Nettie F.,

10 this court concluded 

that § 43-2,106.01 controlled the matter but did not authorize 

an adjudicated child’s sibling to appeal from a juvenile court’s 

adverse placement order. In In re Interest of Jackson E.,

11

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

6 In re Interest of Jackson E., supra note 4.

7 See id.

8 In re Interest of Nettie F., 295 Neb. 117, 887 N.W.2d 45 (2016); In re 

Interest of Jackson E., supra note 4.

9 See, In re Interest of Nettie F., supra note 8; In re Interest of Jackson E., 

supra note 4; In re Interest of Meridian H., supra note 5.

10 In re Interest of Nettie F., supra note 8.

11 In re Interest of Jackson E., supra note 4.
- 854 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSEPH C.

Cite as 299 Neb. 848

this court observed that the right to appeal in a juvenile 

case is purely statutory and that neither foster parents nor 

grandparents, as such, have a statutory right to appeal from 

a juvenile court order pursuant to § 43-2,106.01(2). Further, 

this court determined that because the appealing parties, as 

former foster parents, were never awarded custody of the 

child, they were not custodians or guardians for the purposes 

of § 43-2,106.01(2) and did not have standing to appeal on 

that basis.

Here, Tina cannot claim a right to appeal under 

§ 43-2,106.01(2) as Joseph’s “custodian,” because she has 

never had custody of him. Nor can she appeal based on her status as the biological aunt and adoptive sister of Joseph’s father, 

Michael. Tina’s familial link to Joseph is more remote than 

the relationships this court found insufficient to provide standing in In re Interest of Nettie F. and In re Interest of Jackson 

E. This is especially true considering that Michael’s parental 

rights to Joseph have been terminated.12 Yet, even if Michael’s 

parental rights to Joseph had remained intact, § 43-2,106.01(2) 

would not support regarding Tina as one who may appeal a 

juvenile court order. Accordingly, Tina has no standing to 

invoke the jurisdiction of this court.

Tina argues that the Legislature did not intend § 43-2,106.01(2) 

to exclusively govern standing to appeal juvenile matters. 

She relies on that section’s provision that “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.”13 This court has already considered the Legislature’s 

12 In re Interest of Meridian H., supra note 5 (holding, in context of 

appeal from juvenile placement order, that grandparents lacked standing, 

because any interest or right that they may have had via their biological 

relationship to adjudicated child ceased to exist when parental rights of 

grandparents’ child, that is, adjudicated child’s parent, were terminated).

13 § 43-2,106.01(2)(c) (emphasis supplied).
- 855 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSEPH C.

Cite as 299 Neb. 848

purpose in defining “custodian or guardian.” In In re Interest 

of Artharena D.,

14 this court held that through the language 

defining “custodian or guardian,” the Legislature “expressed an 

intention to expand the definition of ‘custodian’ . . . to extend 

the right of appeal to individuals having the care of a juvenile 

by means other than an award under the Juvenile Code.” Thus, 

by defining “custodian or guardian,” “the Legislature intended 

. . . to ensure that those with alternative custody arrangements, 

bestowed outside the courts, have standing to appeal.”15 As 

noted above, this court’s recent cases clarify that § 43-2,106.01 

alone controls who may appeal from a juvenile court’s placement order,16 and the language defining “custodian or guardian” in § 43-2,106.01(2) does not establish an extrastatutory 

path to standing in juvenile appeals, as Tina suggests.

[8] Further, Tina contends that under the facts of this case, 

a narrow construction of § 43-2,106.01(2) that denies her and 

similarly situated individuals the right to appeal, while allowing only the county attorney and guardian ad litem to appeal, 

does not ensure the advancement of the child’s best interests 

in all cases and could not represent the Legislature’s intent. A 

court gives statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning 

and will not look beyond the statute to determine the legislative intent when the words are plain, direct, and unambiguous.17 The plain language of § 43-2,106.01(2), supplemented 

by this court’s interpretation of “custodian,” clearly limits the 

right to appeal juvenile orders to a select few, and as explained 

above, such language does not encompass Tina, regardless of 

her good intentions.

14 In re Interest of Artharena D., 253 Neb. 613, 618, 571 N.W.2d 608, 612 

(1997).

15 In re Interest of Jackson E., supra note 4, 293 Neb. at 90, 875 N.W.2d at 

868.

16 In re Interest of Nettie F., supra note 8.

17 In re Interest of Nizigiyimana R., 295 Neb. 324, 889 N.W.2d 362 (2016).
- 856 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

299 Nebraska Reports

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSEPH C.

Cite as 299 Neb. 848

Finally, Tina points out that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533(4) 

(Reissue 2016) provides, “[W]hen a child cannot remain with 

parents, [it shall be the policy of the State] to give preference 

to relatives as a placement resource.” She asserts that she has 

a personal stake in the outcome of Joseph’s case as a consequence of this preference, coupled with the affirmative steps 

she and Rodney have taken toward eventual adoption. Tina’s 

argument hearkens back to In re Interest of Meridian H.,

18

where this court noted that the adjudicated child’s siblings were 

not in the categories listed in § 43-2,106.01; but, “[a]ssuming 

without deciding that a person who is not statutorily authorized 

to appeal from such an order could nevertheless do so,” this 

court went on to consider whether the siblings had “a personal 

stake in the controversy in order to have standing necessary to 

invoke appellate jurisdiction.” However, as stated above, this 

court’s more recent opinions have clarified that § 43-2,106.01 

exclusively controls who has the right to appeal from a juvenile 

court’s placement order.19 The preference for relative placement remains a guiding principle for those involved in permanency planning for adjudicated children,20 and the efforts that 

Tina and Rodney have made on Joseph’s behalf are indeed 

commendable. But these factors offer no basis to alter this 

court’s conclusion that Tina is not entitled to the statutory right 

to appeal delineated in § 43-2,106.01(2).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Tina lacks standing, and her 

appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

18 In re Interest of Meridian H., supra note 5, 281 Neb. at 476, 798 N.W.2d 

at 105.

19 See, In re Interest of Nettie F., supra note 8; In re Interest of Jackson E., 

supra note 4.

20 See § 43-533.