Opinion ID: 2205480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: rigginses' guardianship

Text: On May 1, 2002, the Rigginses filed an application in the county court for an order appointing them as temporary co-guardians and coconservators of V.B. and S.B. The parties then stipulated, on June 18, that the Rigginses should be appointed successor temporary co-guardians and co-conservators of the children until trial could be had on their motion to remove the Shaners as guardians. The stipulation provided the Shaners with parenting time on every other weekend, every Wednesday, and alternate Mondays. The county court entered an order to that effect. A school social worker for Lincoln Public Schools worked with V.B. and S.B. starting in September 2002. The social worker testified generally that V.B. and S.B. were doing well since they had been living with the Rigginses and had made positive gains since moving. The social worker testified that she would be concerned if the children returned to the Shaners, because on a couple of different occasions, the children had mentioned that they're afraid of the Shaners. The social worker did not have any concerns about the Rigginses. V.B. testified over objection. V.B. stated that she did not like going to visit the Shaners because she did not think they [were] good people. However, V.B.'s testimony indicated that her opinion was based, at least in part, on things that the Rigginses had told her about the Shaners. James admitted that he had negative opinions about the Shaners and that when the children asked for his opinions, he answered those questions truthfully. Dr. Lisa Blankenau, a licensed psychologist, also testified over objection. The Shaners objected on the basis that Blankenau had been disclosed as a witness only 2 days before she was called to testify. Specifically, they objected that [w]e have not had any opportunity to obtain a rebuttal expert witness. What I would ask is either that this witness be stricken or that in that alternative if the Court is going to allow this witness to testify that when the Shaner's [sic] case is presented that we may have the opportunity to withhold our rest to obtain a rebuttal witness. The Shaners also filed a motion in limine, stating that they need[ed] adequate time to obtain rebuttal expert. The court ruled that it would hear the testimony but that the Shaners could withhold their rest for a reasonable period of time to offer any evidence you wish inin response thereto. However, the Shaners rested without presenting a witness to rebut Blankenau's testimony, despite being reminded by the court at the time that they had been granted leave to withhold their rest. Blankenau testified about her evaluation of V.B. and S.B. Blankenau testified that V.B. had consistently stated that she did not want to go with the Shaners, because she was afraid of them, they were unpredictable, she was confused by them, and they intimidated her and S.B. Blankenau opined that continued visitation with the Shaners was not in V.B.'s or S.B.'s best interests. Blankenau also testified that she did not believe that V.B. and S.B. were being manipulated or coached, because V.B. always provided examples of things that happened when she was with the Shaners that made her feel the way that she did. Blankenau did not make any recommendation regarding the fitness of the Shaners to be guardians. The Rigginses testified generally regarding their activities with the children, their relationship with the children, and the children's relationship with their half brother, who is also in the Rigginses' care. Similarly, the Shaners testified about their activities with the children and presented testimony from other witnesses regarding the Shaners' relationship with the children and their fitness to be parents.