Court Opinion

ID: 9518072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:42:13.887658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:16.562239
License: Public Domain

Miller-Lerman, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Dorothy equitable intervention. I would reverse.
I agree that Dorothy does not have a “direct and legal interest” which would mandate intervention in this proceeding as a matter of right. Further, as the majority notes, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1314 (Reissue 1998) was amended in 1998 to provide that “notice” such as Dorothy received shall not be constmed to require that an individual receiving such notice be made a party. However, § 43-1314 does not preclude an individual who receives such notice from being made a party.
We have noted that “[t]he courts recognize two methods by which intervention may be accomplished. One is statutory and is allowed as a matter of right.... The other is a matter of equitable discretion .... This existed prior to the enactment of the statute, and still exists independent thereof.” Department of Banking v. Stenger, 132 Neb. 576, 577, 272 N.W. 403, 404 (1937). Equitable intervention is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See id.
A judicial abuse of discretion exists when a judge, within the effective limits of authorized judicial power, elects to act or refrains from acting, and the selected option results in a decision which is untenable and unfairly deprives a litigant of a substantial right or a just result in matters submitted for disposition through a judicial system.
Peter v. Peter, 262 Neb. 1017, 1022, 637 N.W.2d 865, 871 (2002).
A review of the record shows that “checkered” results have been delivered by the public systems charged with vigilance in facilitating the best interests of the parentless child involved. *266See Colman v. Colman Foundation, Inc., 199 Neb. 263, 266, 258 N.W.2d 128, 129 (1977) (White, J., dissenting) (referring to “checkered course” of the proceedings therein and concluding that equitable intervention should have been allowed). Indeed, the court in this case acknowledged that Dorothy has been the “one person that Destiny has had as a constant in her life.” In view of prior proceedings and the unique posture of the participants in this case, I would conclude that it was an abuse of discretion not to allow equitable intervention by Dorothy.
Wright and McCormack, JJ., join in this dissent.