Court Opinion

ID: 9388659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 13:05:27.65464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.763571
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
04/21/2023 08:05 AM CDT

                                                         - 91 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        314 Nebraska Reports
                                    IN RE INTEREST OF MANUEL C. & MATEO S.
                                                Cite as 314 Neb. 91

                          In re Interest of Manuel C. and Mateo S.,
                                children under 18 years of age.
                        State of Nebraska, appellee and cross-appellee,
                          v. Amber S., appellant, and Red Lake Band
                                 of Chippewa Indians, appellee
                                     and cross-appellant.
                                                   ___ N.W.2d ___

                                         Filed April 21, 2023.    No. S-22-653.

                 1. Judgments: 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, which requires the appellate court to reach a
                    conclusion independent of the lower court’s decision.
                 2. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juve-
                    nile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions indepen-
                    dently of the juvenile court’s findings.
                 3. Judgments: Statutes: Appeal and Error. When an appeal calls for
                    statutory interpretation or presents questions of law, an appellate court
                    must reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the deter-
                    mination made by the court below.
                 4. 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.
                 5. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. When an appellate court is without
                    jurisdiction to act, the appeal must be dismissed.
                 6. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. For an appellate court
                    to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, there must be a final order or judg-
                    ment entered by the court from which the appeal is taken; conversely,
                    an appellate court is without jurisdiction to entertain appeals from non-
                    final orders.
                                   - 92 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    314 Nebraska Reports
              IN RE INTEREST OF MANUEL C. & MATEO S.
                          Cite as 314 Neb. 91

 7. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902
    (Cum. Supp. 2022), the four types of final orders which may be
    reviewed on appeal are (1) an order which affects a substantial right in
    an action and which in effect determines the action and prevents a judg-
    ment, (2) an order affecting a substantial right made during a special
    proceeding, (3) an order affecting a substantial right made on summary
    application in an action after a judgment is rendered, and (4) an order
    denying a motion for summary judgment when such motion is based
    on the assertion of sovereign immunity or the immunity of a govern-
    ment official.
 8. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. A proceeding before a juvenile
    court is a special proceeding for appellate purposes.
 9. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. As provided by Neb. Rev. Stat.
    § 25-1902 (Cum. Supp. 2022), to be final and appealable, an order in a
    special proceeding must affect a substantial right.
10. Final Orders: Words and Phrases. A substantial right is an essential
    legal right, not a mere technical right.
11. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. A substantial right is affected if an
    order affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as diminishing a
    claim or defense that was available to the appellant prior to the order
    from which the appeal is taken.
12. Interventions: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. The denial of a
    motion to intervene is generally a final and appealable order.
13. Indian Child Welfare Act: Proof. A party to a proceeding who seeks
    to invoke a provision of the Nebraska Indian Child Welfare Act has the
    burden to show that the act applies in the proceeding.

  Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Lancaster
County: Shellie D. Sabata, Judge. Affirmed.
  Jacinta Dai-Klabunde, of Legal Aid of Nebraska, for
appellant.
   Patrick F. Condon, Lancaster County Attorney, and Maureen
E. Lamski for appellee State of Nebraska.
  Joseph Plumer, for appellee Red Lake Band of Chippewa
Indians.
   Allison Derr, Robert McEwen, and Sarah Helvey for amicus
curiae Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public
Interest.
                             - 93 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
           IN RE INTEREST OF MANUEL C. & MATEO S.
                       Cite as 314 Neb. 91

  Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
  Heavican, C.J.
                       INTRODUCTION
   Manuel C. and Mateo S. were previously adjudicated as
minors for purposes of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue
2016), dealing with abuse and neglect allegations. A motion
to terminate the parental rights of their mother, Amber S., was
filed. The Red Lake Tribe of Chippewa Indians filed a motion
to intervene, which was granted. The State then filed a motion
to reconsider. Following a hearing, the motion to reconsider
was granted and intervention denied. Amber appeals, and the
tribe cross-appeals, the juvenile court’s denial of the tribe’s
motion to intervene.
   The questions presented by this appeal are (1) whether
Amber and the tribe appeal from a final order and (2) whether
Manuel and Mateo are children for purposes of the Indian
Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Nebraska Indian Child
Welfare Act (NICWA), where their biological mother is eli-
gible for enrollment, but not yet a member of the tribe, and
the tribe has indicated that it considers Amber to be a member
of the tribe for purposes of ICWA. We affirm the denial of the
motion to intervene.
                         BACKGROUND
   Manuel was born in January 2021, and Mateo was born in
September 2019. Amber is the biological mother of Manuel
and Mateo. The parental rights of the children’s biological
father are not at issue in this appeal.
   Following Manuel’s birth, the State sought to adjudicate
Manuel and Mateo as a result of Amber’s admitted meth-
amphetamine use, as well as a history of domestic violence
between Amber and the children’s father. That petition was
granted, and the children were removed from Amber’s care.
Services were attempted, but the State ultimately sought termi-
nation in April 2022.
                              - 94 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
            IN RE INTEREST OF MANUEL C. & MATEO S.
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 91

   On July 8, 2022, Amber’s counsel filed a motion to con-
tinue, noting “there is reason to know the children are ICWA
children” and “notification for the Indian Child’s tribe has not
occurred.” Thereafter, the court ordered that notice be sent to
the tribe, and such notice was served on July 22. The tribe
sought intervention on August 16, which was initially granted
on August 25.
   That same day, the State filed a motion to reconsider the
order granting the tribe’s motion to intervene. The juvenile
court granted the motion to reconsider, and a hearing was
held on the motion to intervene on August 26. At that hearing,
the State argued that intervention should be denied because
Manuel and Mateo were not Indian children for purposes of
ICWA. The State conceded that the record produced at the
hearing showed that Manuel and Mateo were eligible for
membership in the tribe, but argued that there was no evidence
presented that Amber, their biological parent, was a member
of the tribe. Upon followup, the tribe clarified in an email that
“because [Amber] is eligible for enrollment,” she was consid-
ered “a member for purposes of being accorded the protec-
tions of ICWA.”
   A representative of the tribe testified at this hearing that
Amber was “eligible for enrollment for the tribe. When she
becomes enrolled, then she is a citizen of this nation. . . .
Amber . . . and her children are all eligible for enrollment,
yes.” The representative further testified that there was no
distinction between “enrollment” and “membership.” The rep-
resentative’s testimony continued:
         Q . . . [I]s it Red Lake as a sovereign nation, are they
      the ones who get to decide who is considered an Indian
      child or Indian member?
         A Yes.
         Q And is it also the tribe who consider — can decide
      who they consider an Indian member for being accorded
      the protections of ICWA?
         A Yes, it is up to the tribe.
                               - 95 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   314 Nebraska Reports
            IN RE INTEREST OF MANUEL C. & MATEO S.
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 91

         Q And is it your understanding that in [this] case that
      the tribe has considered them members for purposes of
      being accorded the protections of ICWA?
         A Yes.
         Q And so, for ICWA purposes, [Amber] and her children
      are considered members to be accorded that protection?
         A Yes.
         ....
         Q As we sit here today, Amber . . . is not an enrolled
      member of your, of the Red Lake Nation, correct?
         A Correct.
At the hearing on intervention, counsel for the tribe acknowl-
edged that “[Amber] is not an enrolled member, but I believe
we need to look behind the curtain in this particular case.”
Counsel later noted that “this particular case . . . doesn’t fit the
definition, but . . . clearly it meets the spirit of the law.”
   In denying the motion to intervene, the juvenile court noted
that Amber was “eligible” for enrollment and had begun that
process. The court further acknowledged that the tribe and
Amber both encouraged a finding that Amber was a member
as a function of the “‘spirit of the law.’” The juvenile court
declined that invitation, noting that its
      sworn duty . . . is to apply laws exactly as they are
      written.
         While the children may become Indian Children under
      the Act at some point in the future, and the tribe wishes to
      extend ICWA protections to them today, this Court simply
      cannot embellish or ignore the words of federal and state
      legislation to make the requested findings.
Accordingly, the juvenile court vacated its order granting
the tribe’s motion to intervene. Amber appeals, and the tribe
cross-appeals.
                ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
   On appeal and cross-appeal, Amber and the tribe both assign
that the juvenile court erred in (1) finding that ICWA and
                                    - 96 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     314 Nebraska Reports
               IN RE INTEREST OF MANUEL C. & MATEO S.
                           Cite as 314 Neb. 91

NICWA did not apply to Amber and her children and (2) vacat-
ing its order granting the tribe’s motion to intervene.
                   STANDARD OF REVIEW
   [1] A jurisdictional question which does not involve a fac-
tual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of
law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion
independent of the lower court’s decision. 1
   [2,3] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on
the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the
juvenile court’s findings. 2 When an appeal calls for statutory
interpretation or presents questions of law, an appellate court
must reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of
the determination made by the court below. 3
                           ANALYSIS
Final Order.
   [4,5] This case presents an issue regarding appellate juris-
diction. In a juvenile case, as in any other appeal, before reach-
ing 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 When an appellate court is without jurisdic-
tion to act, the appeal must be dismissed. 5
   [6,7] For an appellate court to acquire jurisdiction of an
appeal, there must be a final order or judgment entered by the
court from which the appeal is taken; conversely, an appel-
late court is without jurisdiction to entertain appeals from
nonfinal orders. 6 Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Cum.
1
    In re Interest of Jassenia H., 291 Neb. 107, 864 N.W.2d 242 (2015).
2
    In re Interest of Shayla H. et al., 289 Neb. 473, 855 N.W.2d 774 (2014).
3
    In re Adoption of Kenten H., 272 Neb. 846, 725 N.W.2d 548 (2007).
4
    In re Interest of Jassenia H., supra note 1.
5
    Id.
6
    See Florence Lake Investments v. Berg, 312 Neb. 183, 978 N.W.2d 308
    (2022).
                                    - 97 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                IN RE INTEREST OF MANUEL C. & MATEO S.
                            Cite as 314 Neb. 91

Supp. 2022), the four types of final orders which may be
reviewed on appeal are (1) an order which affects a substantial
right in an action and which in effect determines the action
and prevents a judgment, (2) an order affecting a substantial
right made during a special proceeding, (3) an order affect-
ing a substantial right made on summary application in an
action after a judgment is rendered, and (4) an order denying
a motion for summary judgment when such motion is based
on the assertion of sovereign immunity or the immunity of a
government official. 7
   [8,9] We have previously indicated that a proceeding before
a juvenile court is a special proceeding for appellate purposes. 8
Thus, we focus our analysis upon the second category of final
orders set forth in § 25-1902. And as provided by that section,
to be final and appealable, an order in a special proceeding
must affect a substantial right. 9
   [10,11] We have defined a “substantial right” in various
ways. We have stated that a substantial right is an essential
legal right, not a mere technical right. 10 We have also explained
that a substantial right is affected if an order affects the subject
matter of the litigation, such as diminishing a claim or defense
that was available to the appellant prior to the order from
which the appeal is taken. 11
   We find relevant In re Interest of Brittany C. et al. 12 and
In re Interest of Jassenia H. 13 In In re Interest of Brittany
C. et al., the Nebraska Court of Appeals concluded that
 7
     See id.
 8
     Id.
 9
     Id.
10
     Id.
11
     Id.
12
     In re Interest of Brittany C. et al., 13 Neb. App. 411, 693 N.W.2d 592
     (2005).
13
     In re Interest of Jassenia H., supra note 1.
                                       - 98 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       314 Nebraska Reports
                 IN RE INTEREST OF MANUEL C. & MATEO S.
                             Cite as 314 Neb. 91

the denial of the biological mother’s request to transfer juris-
diction to a tribal court was final and appealable. Specifically,
the Court of Appeals noted that the order affected a substantial
right because it was
      not merely a step or proceeding within the overall action.
      If the request were granted, the pending proceedings
      would stop and these matters would be transferred to
      another forum. While a tribal court in some respects may
      resemble a judicial forum based on Anglo-Saxon judicial
      traditions, it may differ in other respects consistent with
      the tribal court’s Native American traditions. . . .
         . . . [And Congress’] findings [with regard to the
      purposes of ICWA] emphasize Congress’ determination
      that a tribal court may provide the parent and the child
      with significant advantages inherent in the recognition
      and implementation of Native American customs and
      traditions. 14
   But in In re Interest of Jassenia H., we found that a juvenile
court’s determination that ICWA and NICWA applied was not
a final order. We observed that
      all of the heightened protections afforded by ICWA and
      NICWA apply prospectively to future determinations in
      the proceedings. In the present case, there is no indica-
      tion that these protections have had any effect upon the
      adjudication proceedings. From the record, it does not
      appear that the juvenile court has entered a preadjudica-
      tion detention order. . . . And it is clear that [the child]
      had not yet been adjudicated at the time ICWA and
      NICWA were found applicable. Further, we see no motion
      to transfer jurisdiction to a tribal court or any indication
      that the . . . [t]ribe has sought to intervene.
         Until the court takes action to implement or con-
      travene the heightened protections afforded by ICWA
14
     In re Interest of Brittany C. et al., supra note 12, 13 Neb. App. at 421, 693
     N.W.2d at 601-02.
                                   - 99 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                IN RE INTEREST OF MANUEL C. & MATEO S.
                            Cite as 314 Neb. 91

      and NICWA in some fashion, we cannot conclude that the
      mere determination of applicability affects a substantial
      right. The juvenile court declared only that these laws
      apply—it did not implement them in any way affect-
      ing the child’s substantial rights. The court’s order was
      interlocutory and until it applied the law in some adju-
      dicative or dispositive action, functioned merely as an
      advisory opinion. 15
   We conclude that the order denying intervention is final.
ICWA and NICWA provide the tribe has a right, in certain
situations, to intervene and participate in proceedings involving
Indian children. As we observe in more detail below, NICWA
recognizes that “Indian tribes have a continuing and compel-
ling governmental interest in an Indian child.” 16
   [12] In reaching this conclusion, we find the appeal before
us to be more similar to In re Interest of Brittany C. et al. than
to In re Interest of Jassenia H. In the latter case, the juvenile
court made a finding regarding the future applicability of
IWCA, but did not otherwise apply it. 17 Conversely, in In re
Interest of Brittany C. et al., the juvenile court applied ICWA
and denied the request to transfer the action to tribal court, and
thus took action based on its conclusion that ICWA applied.
Finally, we note that the denial of a motion to intervene is gen-
erally a final and appealable order in Nebraska. 18
   We conclude that the denial of the right to intervene under
ICWA affects a substantial right. As such, the tribe and Amber
appeal from a final order.
15
     In re Interest of Jassenia H., supra note 1, 291 Neb. at 115-16, 864
     N.W.2d at 249.
16
     Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1502 (Reissue 2016).
17
     In re Interest of Jassenia H., supra note 1.
18
     See, e.g., In re Interest of Jordon B., 312 Neb. 827, 981 N.W.2d 242
     (2022); In re Margaret L. Matthews Revocable Trust, 312 Neb. 381,
     979 N.W.2d 259 (2022); Streck, Inc. v. Ryan Family, 297 Neb. 773, 901
     N.W.2d 284 (2017).
                             - 100 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
            IN RE INTEREST OF MANUEL C. & MATEO S.
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 91

Applicability of ICWA.
   We turn to the substantive question presented by this
appeal—namely whether the juvenile court erred in finding
that Manuel and Mateo were not “Indian Children” under
ICWA and NICWA and, accordingly, in denying the tribe’s
motion to intervene.
   The tribe and Amber generally assert it is the tribe alone
that makes determinations regarding a child’s membership, a
child’s eligibility for membership, or a parent’s membership,
and they further argue enrollment in a tribe is not dispositive
as to the issue of membership in a tribe. As such, they con-
tend the juvenile court erred when it found that the children
were not Indian children despite the tribe’s assertion that
they were.
   Section 43-1502 sets forth that the purpose of NICWA is
     to clarify state policies and procedures regarding the
     implementation by the State of Nebraska of the federal
     Indian Child Welfare Act. It shall be the policy of the
     state to cooperate fully with Indian tribes in Nebraska
     in order to ensure that the intent and provisions of the
     federal Indian Child Welfare Act are enforced. This coop-
     eration includes recognition by the state that Indian tribes
     have a continuing and compelling governmental interest
     in an Indian child whether or not the Indian child is in the
     physical or legal custody of a parent, an Indian custodian,
     or an Indian extended family member at the commence-
     ment of an Indian child custody proceeding or the Indian
     child has resided or is domiciled on an Indian reserva-
     tion. The state is committed to protecting the essential
     tribal relations and best interests of an Indian child by
     promoting practices consistent with the federal Indian
     Child Welfare Act and other applicable law designed to
     prevent the Indian child’s voluntary or involuntary out-
     of-home placement.
                                     - 101 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       314 Nebraska Reports
                 IN RE INTEREST OF MANUEL C. & MATEO S.
                             Cite as 314 Neb. 91

   [13] We have previously held that a party to a proceeding
who seeks to invoke a provision of NICWA has the burden to
show that the act applies in the proceeding. 19
   Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1504(3) (Reissue 2016) states that “[i]n
any state court proceeding for the . . . termination of parental
rights [to] an Indian child, the Indian custodian of the child and
the Indian child’s tribe or tribes shall have a right to intervene
at any point in the proceeding . . . .” “Indian child” is defined
to mean “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and
is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for
membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a
member of an Indian tribe.” 20
   In this case, there is no allegation that Manuel and Mateo
are themselves members of the tribe. As such, ICWA and
NICWA apply only if the children are eligible for member-
ship in the tribe and if one of their biological parents—in this
case, their mother, Amber—is also a member of the tribe. The
juvenile court concluded that Amber was not a member, and
as such, the children were not “Indian children,” and that the
tribe’s motion to intervene should be denied. We review that
determination de novo.
   The central dispute here is whether Amber is a member of
the tribe when the only evidence in the record was that Amber
was eligible for membership, that she had begun the enroll-
ment process, and that the tribe “considered” Amber to be a
member for purposes of ICWA. The tribe and Amber assert on
appeal that the juvenile court and the State have incorrectly
suggested enrollment is dispositive to the question of member-
ship and that the tribe itself is the entity entitled to identify
its members.
   We agree that a tribe has the sole “jurisdiction and author-
ity” to make a decision as to who might be a member of
19
     See, e.g., In re Adoption of Kenten H., supra note 3.
20
     Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1503(8) (Reissue 2016).
                                     - 102 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                IN RE INTEREST OF MANUEL C. & MATEO S.
                            Cite as 314 Neb. 91

the tribe, 21 but we must still determine whether the tribe has
made such a decision with respect to Amber. 22 We also rec-
ognize that enrollment is not the only means of establishing
someone’s membership in a tribe. 23 Although enrollment is not
wholly dispositive to membership, we believe it is relevant
here, where the tribe’s representative testified at the hearing
on the motion to intervene that for her purposes, there was
no distinction between “enrollment” and “membership,” and
that Amber would be a “citizen” of the tribe, “[w]hen she
becomes enrolled.” We note that the juvenile court indicated
that Amber was not enrolled—rather than finding that Amber
was not a member—when it found that the children were not
“Indian children.”
   But we do not give weight to the juvenile court’s finding on
appeal. Rather, this court reviews the decision of the juvenile
court de novo, and the tribe has the burden to show that ICWA
and NICWA are applicable. 24 In that de novo review, we note
that the tribe fails to introduce any other evidence showing that
Amber was a member of the tribe; rather, the tribe offered only
evidence that it “considered” Amber, Manuel, and Mateo to be
members for purposes of ICWA.
   We hold that evidence that the tribe “considered” Amber a
member for purposes of ICWA is insufficient. The plain lan-
guage of § 43-1503(8) provides as relevant that an “Indian
child” must have a biological parent who is a member of a
tribe. The evidence adduced in the juvenile court shows that
Amber is not currently a member of the tribe; the children,
in turn, do not have a biological parent that is a member of
the tribe. 25
21
     25 C.F.R. § 23.108 (2022).
22
     See In re Adoption of C.D., 751 N.W.2d 236 (N.D. 2008).
23
     See, e.g., United States v. Broncheau, 597 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1979).
24
     See In re Adoption of Kenten H., supra note 3.
25
     See, also, In re Adoption of C.D., supra note 22.
                            - 103 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
           IN RE INTEREST OF MANUEL C. & MATEO S.
                       Cite as 314 Neb. 91

   While their status may change in the future, Manuel and
Mateo are not currently Indian children for purposes of ICWA
and NICWA. As such, ICWA and NICWA are inapplicable and
the juvenile court did not err in denying the tribe’s motion to
intervene.
                       CONCLUSION
  The decision of the juvenile court is affirmed.
                                                    Affirmed.