Court Opinion

ID: 9369979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 15:07:02.350911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.374833
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
02/10/2023 09:07 AM CST

                                                        - 491 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        313 Nebraska Reports
                                           IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                                                Cite as 313 Neb. 491

                              In re Adoption of Faith F., a minor child.
                                Jerald M. and Stacey M., appellants,
                                        v. Kelly B., appellee.
                                                    ___ N.W.2d ___

                                        Filed February 10, 2023.   No. S-22-398.

                 1. Interventions. Whether a party has the right to intervene in a proceed-
                    ing is a question of law.
                 2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing questions of law, an
                    appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently
                    of the conclusion reached by the trial court.
                 3. Adoption: Appeal and Error. The standard of review in an appeal from
                    a court’s ruling on an adoption petition is error on the record.
                 4. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a judgment for errors
                    appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms
                    to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary,
                    capricious, nor unreasonable.
                 5. ____: ____. In instances when an appellate court is required to review
                    cases for error appearing on the record, questions of law are nonetheless
                    reviewed de novo on the record.
                 6. Interventions. As a prerequisite to intervention, the intervenor must
                    have a direct and legal interest of such character that the intervenor will
                    lose or gain by the direct operation and legal effect of the judgment
                    which the court may render in the action.
                 7. 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.
                 8. Adoption: Guardians and Conservators: Statutes. The statutory
                    scheme governing guardianship contemplates the involvement of the
                    guardian in matters concerning the child, explicitly in adoption proceed-
                    ings, and the direct operation and legal effect of an adoption of the child
                    is the loss of a guardian’s legal interest.
                                   - 492 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    313 Nebraska Reports
                       IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 491

 9. Adoption. Adoption proceedings were unknown to the common law and
    do not depend upon equitable principles.
10. Adoption: Statutes. Best interests are not specifically defined by
    Nebraska’s adoption statutes.
11. Adoption: Presumptions. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533(5) (Reissue 2016)
    does not set forth a legal presumption controlling a best interests analy-
    sis, nor does it limit the factors a trial court may consider in deciding
    whether granting a petition for adoption is in the child’s best interests.
12. Minors: Presumptions. Rebuttable presumptions or determinative fac-
    tors are generally disfavored in an analysis of a child’s best interests.
13. Minors. In an analysis of a child’s best interests, the weight to be given
    to any factor necessarily differs from case to case due to each factor’s
    interrelation to other factors.
14. Adoption. The beneficial permanency of adoption is an important con-
    sideration that must be weighed in a best interests analysis under an
    adoption petition.
15. ____. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533(5) (Reissue 2016) does not limit a
    court’s flexibility under an adoption petition to make an individualized
    determination of the child’s best interests.
16. ____. Reducing best interests to whether the first person to the court-
    house with an adoption petition is good enough to carry out parental
    responsibilities for a child is inconsistent with the comprehensive and
    individualized consideration traditionally expected of trial courts in
    determining a child’s best interests.
17. ____. The best interests of the child who is the subject of an adoption
    petition must remain a flexible and unique determination based on spe-
    cific evidence relating to that child.
18. Adoption: Guardians and Conservators. In determining whether
    adoption is in a child’s best interests, a court may consider the effect
    of adoption on preexisting family attachments and weigh the alternative
    of continuing the status quo of a guardianship.

  Appeal from the County Court for Sarpy County: Todd J.
Hutton, Judge. Affirmed.
  Lisa M. Line, of Brodkey, Cuddigan, Peebles, Belmont &
Line, L.L.P., for appellants.
  Aimee S. Melton, Richard W. Whitworth, and Megan E.
Shupe, of Reagan, Melton & Delaney, L.L.P., for appellee.
                              - 493 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                   IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 491

  Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
  Freudenberg, J.
                       I. INTRODUCTION
   This case concerns a petition to adopt a minor child whose
parents died as the result of a murder-suicide. The mater-
nal grandfather and grandmother, who are divorced, share a
temporary guardianship and conservatorship over the child
whereby the child splits her time between the two households.
The child’s minor half sister resides solely with the maternal
grandmother. Both children are receiving mental health treat-
ment. After allowing the grandmother to intervene and present
evidence in opposition to the adoption, the county court found
it was not in the child’s best interests to grant the petition. It
explained that a coguardianship would keep intact the child’s
attachments with the family members of both households and
the child “needs the security which comes from these attach-
ments.” The maternal grandfather and stepgrandmother appeal,
arguing the grandmother lacked standing to intervene and the
court erred in its best interests analysis. We affirm.
                      II. BACKGROUND
   At issue in this case is the petition by Dr. Jerald M. (Jerry)
and Dr. Stacey M. to adopt Faith F., who was 7 years old at
the time of the hearing on the petition. Jerry is Faith’s bio-
logical maternal grandfather and Stacey is his wife. Faith’s
biological maternal grandmother, Kelly B., Jerry’s ex-wife,
objected to the adoption.
   Faith’s biological mother was Kari F. and her biological
father was Zachary F. In September 2019, when Faith was 5
years old, Zachary murdered Kari and killed himself imme-
diately thereafter. Faith was in the family home at the time
and discovered her parents’ bodies. Until that day, Faith had
always lived with her parents and her half sister, Grace A., the
biological child of Kari and her first husband. Grace was 12
                             - 494 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                   IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 491

years old at the time of the murder-suicide but was not in the
home at the time of the incident.
   Kari also had another child before her first marriage, Jaden
R., who was 17 years old when Kari was killed. He lived with
his father.
               1. Kelly’s and Jerry’s Families
   Kelly and Jerry were married in 1982 and divorced in 1987.
Kari was born to the marriage, as well as her brother, Jerald M.
   Kari was 3 years old and Jerald was 4 years old at the time
of Kelly and Jerry’s divorce. Kari and Jerald lived with Kelly
after the divorce, and Jerry did not have much contact with
Kari and Jerald when they were growing up.
   Jerry had a second marriage and a third biological child,
Joshua F., born of that marriage in 1989. That marriage ended
in divorce.
   Jerry and Stacey married in 1996, when Kari was approxi-
mately 12 years old. Two sons were born of Jerry and Stacey’s
marriage, the first in 1997 and the second in 2000.
   Kelly had a third biological child in 1989, Katherine C.,
after her divorce from Jerry. Kelly thereafter married Karl B.,
Faith’s stepgrandfather, in 1994, when Kari was 10 years old.
       2. Kari’s, Grace’s, and Faith’s Relationships
                 With Jerry, Stacey, and Kelly
                      Before Kari’s Death
   Kari lived with Kelly at various points of time in Kari’s
adult life. After ending her relationship with Jaden’s father,
Kari and Jaden lived with Kelly. Again, after Kari’s divorce
from her first husband, Kari and Grace lived with Kelly. This
was during the first 5 years of Grace’s life.
   Kari married Zachary in 2012. Thereafter, Kari and Grace
moved with Zachary to Alaska, where Zachary, who was a
member of the military, was stationed. Jerry had “started talk-
ing to Kari . . . consistently” some years before. Faith was born
in Alaska in 2014.
                              - 495 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                   IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 491

   Kelly described that she visited Kari in Alaska several times.
Kelly quit her job to care for Kari in Alaska when she was
pregnant with Faith and suffering medical issues. Kelly then
stayed to help care for Faith after she was born.
   Kari, Zachary, Grace, and Faith moved to California when
Faith was approximately 1 year old, when Zachary was trans-
ferred to that location. During the time they lived in California,
Kari and Faith stayed with Kelly in Nebraska for approximately
4 months in 2017. Kari was preparing to go into officer’s train-
ing with the Air Force but was ultimately unable to join.
   While Kari was living in California, Kelly visited her numer-
ous times. In December 2018, Kari was injured in a motor
vehicle accident. Kelly stayed in California for about a week to
help care for Grace and Faith during Kari’s recovery.
   Due to Kari’s experiencing ongoing post-traumatic stress
disorder from the accident, Zachary was given a humanitar-
ian military transfer back to Nebraska. The family moved to
Nebraska in February or March 2019. Kari and Zachary lived
in base housing.
   After Kari moved back to Nebraska, she began working for
Jerry, who is a practicing dentist, at his dental office. Faith
often accompanied Kari to work.
   Jerry described that when not with a patient, he would spend
time with Faith coloring in coloring books and carrying her
around on his shoulders. He testified, “[W]hen I would be
treating a patient, I would hear, Papa Jerry, where are you? And
my assistant would look at me like, you’re being paged. And
we were very close . . . .”
   According to Jerry’s and Stacey’s testimony, four to five
nights a week, Kari and Faith spent the evening at their house
until around 10 p.m. Kari and Faith occasionally spent the
night. Grace accompanied Kari and Faith on visits occasion-
ally, but she usually preferred to be with friends in base hous-
ing. Kari, Grace, and Faith also accompanied Jerry, Stacey, and
Joshua on a couple of camping trips.
                             - 496 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                  IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                       Cite as 313 Neb. 491

  Kelly described that in the months after Kari and Zachary’s
move back to Nebraska, she sometimes babysat Faith.
                  3. Juvenile, Probate, and
                 Guardianship Proceedings
                     (a) Initial Placements
   Pursuant to orders of the separate juvenile court, the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) took tem-
porary protective custody of Grace and Faith immediately fol-
lowing the murder-suicide. Faith was later adjudicated under
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) (Reissue 2016).
   DHHS initially placed both Grace and Faith with Kelly.
However, due to an old and unfounded allegation, Kelly’s
husband, Karl, had been placed on DHHS’ child abuse reg-
istry. On September 30, 2019, after DHHS discovered Karl’s
name on the registry, Grace and Faith were moved to Jerry
and Stacey’s home. Soon thereafter, Karl was able to get his
name expunged from the registry, but the placement was not
changed back.
              (b) Testamentary Wills and Durable
                        Powers of Attorney
   Kari and Zachary had executed wills in 2017 nominating
Kelly as guardian for Grace and Faith, with Katherine as a
secondary nominee. Kari and Zachary also executed military
durable powers of attorney appointing Kelly as attorney in fact
to exercise all legal rights in connection with the maintenance,
care, and education of their dependents if Kari and Zachary
were incapacitated or missing.
   In the wake of the murder-suicide, these legal documents
were not immediately discovered. Kari and Zachary’s home
was designated a crime scene, and Kelly was unaware that a
will had been executed. Thus, no acceptance of nomination
was filed within 30 days after notice of guardianship proceed-
ings, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2608(d) (Cum. Supp.
2022). Kelly was not notified of the wills until December
                            - 497 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                  IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                       Cite as 313 Neb. 491

2019, after mediation. That same month, Kelly filed appli-
cations for informal probate and appointment as a personal
representative of Kari’s and Zachary’s estates. Kelly was sub-
sequently appointed personal representative.
                (c) Petitions for Guardianship
                         and Adoption
   In January 2020, Kelly filed in county court a petition
for guardianship of Faith. In May, without notifying Kelly,
Jerry and Stacey filed a petition for adoption in county court.
Meanwhile, the separate juvenile court recognized Kelly, Jerry,
and Stacey as intervenors in the juvenile proceedings.
                      (d) Mediated Temporary
                       Custody and Visitation
   While disposition on the juvenile matter was pending, the
juvenile court, in August 2020, ordered that Faith’s custody
was to remain with DHHS with temporary placement and visi-
tation in accordance with a mediated agreement between Kelly,
Jerry, and Stacey. Under the mediated temporary agreement,
reached in June, Faith was to remain placed with Jerry and
Stacey, who would be her temporary guardians and conserva-
tors, but Grace’s placement would change to be with Kelly,
who would be her temporary guardian and conservator. Faith
would spend Wednesdays with Grace at Kelly’s house, and the
half sisters would alternate weekends being together at either
Kelly’s or Jerry and Stacey’s house. The mediator noted the
agreement between Kelly and Jerry and Stacey was “not eas-
ily reached,” but all parties were “aware of the bond between
[Grace and Faith] and want to ensure each family is an integral
part of the girls[’] lives moving forward.”
                  (e) Dismissal of Faith From
                         Juvenile Court
   In August 2020, Kelly became aware that Jerry and Stacey
had filed the petition for adoption and she filed an objection
in county court. Subsequently, Kelly moved in juvenile court
                             - 498 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                   IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 491

to transfer all proceedings relating to Faith to county court. In
November 2020, the juvenile court dismissed Faith from juve-
nile court and discharged her from the custody of DHHS.
                (f) Temporary Coguardianship
   Shortly thereafter, the county court appointed Jerry and
Kelly as temporary coguardians and coconservators of Faith.
The county court ordered that Faith continue to reside with
Jerry and Stacey with visitation to continue under the medi-
ated agreement.
   The county court overruled a motion by Jerry and Stacey to
dismiss, for lack of standing, Kelly’s objection to their peti-
tion for adoption. The court reasoned that Kelly had standing
as a coguardian, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2613(1)(c)
(Reissue 2016).
              4. Faith’s Relationships During
                 Temporary Coguardianship
   By the time the hearing on the petition for and objection
to adoption was held in January 2022, Faith was 7 years old
and had been residing with Jerry and Stacey for over 2 years.
During this time, Faith continued with the visitation plan, hav-
ing her own bedroom at both Jerry and Stacey’s house and at
Kelly and Karl’s house.
                 (a) Kelly and Karl’s Household
   Kelly and one of Karl’s daughters testified about Faith’s
activities and relationships in Kelly and Karl’s household.
Cousins around Faith’s age visit when Faith visits, and Faith
enjoys playing with them. Faith has a good relationship with
Kelly and Karl. “Papa Karl” often takes Faith and her cousins
outside to play and is “the go-to person to make forts.”
   Kelly testified she calls Faith “the little conqueror because
she’s always climbing things . . . give her a mountain, she’ll
do that.” Kelly said that when Faith visits, “[s]he comes bar-
reling through the door,” “[s]he’s very much at home,” and
                              - 499 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   313 Nebraska Reports
                   IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 491

she “[a]lready has an agenda in her head what she’s going
to do.”
   Faith’s room at Kelly and Karl’s house is “very . . . girly”
and filled with stuffed animals and other toys. She has a play-
house outside, a scooter, and a bike. Kelly testified that when
Faith visits, Kelly fills the parental role of ensuring that Faith
eats right, cares for her hygiene, and takes her medicines.
Kelly was concerned that if Faith were adopted by Jerry and
Stacey, her relationship with Faith would be damaged.
   According to Kelly, Grace and Faith “are very important
to one another” and make sure they have “sister time.” Grace
and Faith watch movies, draw, and do craft projects together.
Family members acknowledged that the age gap between Grace
and Faith meant they had not always been close, but since the
murder-suicide, Grace included Faith more. They described
affectionate interactions between Grace and Faith when Faith
visited Kelly’s house.
   Kelly testified, “My desire is for the girls to remain together.
And that is — that goes above whether Jerry has them or I
have them. It really has nothing to do with me. It has every-
thing to do with them.” She relayed that Grace wanted Faith
to live with them and believed Grace would be “very devas-
tated” if Faith’s time at the house became more limited. Kelly
opined that the sibling relationship was very important to both
Grace and Faith and that “if they don’t have the time together,
that relationship over time would fade more and more.” Kelly
thought that Jerry and Stacey’s adopting Faith would be con-
fusing and alienating for both Grace and Faith and that their
“dynamics would just totally change completely.”
              (b) Jerry and Stacey’s Household
   Jerry and Stacey testified about Faith’s activities and rela-
tionships in their household. Stacey described that Faith’s
toys reside everywhere in their house except the laundry
room. Faith enjoys playing “dress up” and drawing. While in
Jerry and Stacey’s care, Faith has taken dance and swimming
                              - 500 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   313 Nebraska Reports
                   IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 491

lessons and gone on frequent outings to the library, parks, and
the zoo. Faith has playdates with friends on the weekends she
stays with Jerry and Stacey.
   Faith is expected to help with chores like clearing the
table and periodically moving toys back into the bedroom.
According to Stacey, the job Faith takes most seriously is push-
ing the button to open the garage door: “[S]he gets very upset
if anyone else pushes the button.” Each night, as part of her
bedtime routine, Jerry and Stacey read chapter books to Faith,
which Faith “really likes.”
   Stacey described that Faith was doing “pretty well” in
school. She reads at her grade level and likes parts of school,
like physical education, art, and recess, but has some trouble
focusing. Stacey helps Faith with her homework, saying “it
takes a lot of patience and time.” Most recently, Jerry and
Stacey developed with Faith’s therapist a plan of alternating
10-minute periods of homework and play. Faith sees a variety
of specialists for her physical and mental health and has a
treatment regimen. Stacey testified she cares for Faith as if she
were her biological daughter and they have a good relationship,
but Faith “always wants to be with Jerry,” who is her “number
one favorite playmate.”
   Jerry testified that in the wake of Kari and Zachary’s deaths,
he felt like he was Faith’s “touchstone.” Faith shared “very
disturbing things” with him and did not want him to leave
her side.
   At the hearing, Jerry testified regarding his relationship with
Faith: “I love her little soul. You know, she’s just an incred-
ible girl. . . . [S]he’s got a lot of energy. She’s funny. She is
intelligent. She’s artistic. . . . [S]he’s just an amazing, amazing
child.” Faith calls Jerry “Papa Jerry,” “dad,” and “daddy.” She
has referred to both Jerry and Stacey as her “parents.” Jerry
testified that neither he nor Stacey asked Faith to refer to them
as her mother and father.
   Jerry and Stacey acknowledged that Faith had an important
relationship with Kelly and the extended family on Kelly’s
                              - 501 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                   IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 491

side. Jerry and Stacey had not had any contact with Grace since
June 2020. They also were not in contact with Jaden.
   Jerry described that he had been close to Grace throughout
her childhood, but Grace was “very disturbed” after Kari’s
death. According to Jerry, Grace did not like living in their
house. He attributed this to the structure they provided, includ-
ing “devices on the phone to notify us in case there’s a sexual
predator or foul language that was being intercepted on her
phone.” Jerry explained that both Grace and Jaden had “pushed
[them] away,” but he believed they would be able to reconnect
in the future.
   Jerry acknowledged it was very difficult for Faith when
Grace moved back to Kelly’s house in June 2020. He explained
that Faith “really wanted to be with her sister, but she wanted
— she wanted her sister to be with us.” Stacey reported that
after Grace moved to Kelly’s house around June 2020, Faith
started sleeping in a separate bed in their master bedroom.
Jerry said that Faith loves Grace, but she does not talk about
her much unless they ask about her.
   Jerry and Stacey testified that if allowed to adopt, they were
committed to allowing continued contact between Faith and
Kelly and her family, but did not know what kind of visita-
tion schedule would be in Faith’s best interests. Both Jerry
and Stacey described Wednesday visitations as disruptive and
difficult for Faith. Jerry explained that all parties had tried to
be flexible with the pandemic and other exigencies, but the
weekend visitation schedules “flip flop more than a house of
pancakes” and the lack of structure had not been in Faith’s
best interests.
              5. Testimony of Dr. Ann Taylor
   Dr. Ann Taylor, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, testi-
fied on behalf of Jerry and Stacey. Taylor began treating Faith
weekly in October 2019 and had also treated Grace. Taylor
knew Jerry and Stacey, having had a “professional relation-
ship” with them before she began treating the children. Jerry
                             - 502 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                   IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 491

and Stacey have participated in all therapy appointments.
Kelly has participated since August 2021. Sessions have taken
place over the internet, with Faith being physically present
with Jerry.
   Taylor recommended that Jerry and Stacey be allowed to
adopt Faith. She opined within a reasonable degree of medi-
cal certainty that adoption by Jerry and Stacey is in Faith’s
psychological best interests. She described Faith as “very
attached” to Jerry and Stacey, viewing Stacey as her mother
and Jerry as her father. According to Taylor, Faith considered
Jerry and Stacey’s house as her home.
   Taylor reported that Faith had shown improvement over the
course of therapy, with the most significant progress in the 3
months prior to the hearing. During the time Faith had been
living with Jerry and Stacey, “she’s been able to start moving
into normal childhood kind of issues and away from where am
I going to live and am I going to be taken away.”
   According to Taylor, changing primary placement to Kelly
“would be devastating.” Taylor explained Faith’s “attachment
was damaged” by the murder-suicide of her parents. Taylor
testified Faith is “attached to [Jerry and Stacey] as her primary
caregivers” and a change in primary caregivers would “recreate
trauma for her.”
   According to Taylor, Faith was not functioning very well
in August 2020 when visitation with Kelly “changed pretty
rapidly” and significantly increased. Taylor explained, “If she
knows what’s going to happen and that is what happens,
she does well. If there are changes, she struggles with that. She
likes to have a schedule be pretty consistent no matter what it
is.” Faith’s anxiety has manifested through vomiting.
   Taylor stated that with the degree of anxiety suffered by
Faith, it is very important to get permanency, which here
means adoption. With adoption, explained Taylor, Faith “will
know who’s in charge of her and what her future looks like.”
   Taylor did not consider guardianship permanency and,
thus, did not consider guardianship in Faith’s best interests.
                              - 503 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                   IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 491

Taylor could not opine on whether Faith, who at that time
was 7 years old, understood the definition of adoption ver-
sus guardianship.
   Taylor opined that it was important for Faith to maintain
contact with her family members on Kelly’s side of the fam-
ily. Taylor opined it would be in Faith’s best interests for her
to be able to continue family relationships with Kelly, Faith’s
siblings, and her cousins on Kelly’s side.
   With respect to Faith’s relationship with Grace, Taylor stated
that the attachment was variable. Faith had reported in the past
that Grace was “mean to her.” Taylor did not elaborate but
testified that Faith’s struggles in her relationship with Grace
go beyond normal sibling issues. Taylor described that DHHS’
involvement with Grace prevented her from treating Grace and
Faith together.
   Although Taylor initially treated Grace separately, at the time
of the hearing, she had not seen her for over a year, because
DHHS had removed her as the treating psychiatrist. Taylor
noted that Faith had reported being sad when Grace moved to
Kelly’s house and stopped visiting Jerry and Stacey, but Faith
processed it as a “temporary loss.” Taylor elaborated, “[T]here
weren’t any behavioral acting out or problems with that that
you would have expected if it had been a huge impact.”
                  6. Testimony of Guardian
                           Ad Litem
   The guardian ad litem (GAL) also opined that Faith’s adop-
tion by Jerry and Stacey would be in Faith’s best interests. The
GAL believed Jerry and Stacey could provide Faith with the
structure and permanency that goes along with knowing “who
not only her primary caregivers are but who is going to be
making decisions about her life, who is going to be the final
arbiter of any decision that’s made, who she can count on.”
   The GAL visited Faith at both Kelly and Karl’s home and
Jerry and Stacey’s home. She observed that Faith was very
comfortable in and “has a love of both homes.”
                              - 504 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                   IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 491

   The GAL elaborated Faith was very comfortable at Kelly’s
home, where she has her own room with “all sorts of toys and
things.” During the visit to Kelly’s home, the GAL observed
Faith “was having a great time playing in there.” The GAL
could not say anything negative about Kelly’s home and noted
that Faith enjoyed spending time with her cousins while at
Kelly’s home.
   The GAL did not see Faith interact with Grace, who was at
home in her room during the visit. The GAL understood that
there did not appear to be a “cohesive sibling relationship”
between Grace and Faith. The GAL testified that Dr. Glenda
Cottam, who had evaluated Grace and done some counseling
with Faith 2 years prior, had told the GAL “it would not be
inappropriate” to split the siblings up for purposes of adoption,
“given their relationship.” However, Cottam had not seen the
girls for approximately 2 years and, because Faith was only 5
years old when Cottam last saw her, had been “unable to do
a really appropriate family dynamics evaluation.” The GAL
noted she had no reason to believe Grace and Faith had devel-
oped a bonded sibling relationship while they were not living
together, stating, “I don’t think it helps a bonded relationship
that they’re not living together. If they didn’t have one before,
I wouldn’t have expected them to have a bonded relationship
after a year or so of being separated.”
   The GAL noted that Jaden, who was an adult, did not have a
relationship with Jerry and Stacey, explaining “there is a reliti-
gation of old grievances that continues to go on and on and
on.” The GAL testified Jaden expressed concerns about Jerry
and Stacey. The GAL did not elaborate what the grievances
were but stated she took them into consideration in rendering
her opinion.
   The GAL testified Faith considered Jerry and Stacey’s house
her home. Faith was very comfortable there and seemed “very
bonded” with Jerry.
   The GAL reported she had asked Faith about whether she
felt safe in each home. Faith responded that she did, but
                             - 505 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                  IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                       Cite as 313 Neb. 491

volunteered that she felt “safer” in Jerry and Stacey’s home.
When asked who her favorite person in the world was, Faith
responded “without skipping a beat” that it was “Papa Jerry.”
The GAL understood that Faith had become comfortable with
Jerry during the time she spent in his dental office while Kari
worked there and “was glued to him after the death of her par-
ents.” The GAL opined, “That bond remains. I could see that
very clearly.” Faith reported to her that Jerry made her laugh
and made her feel comfortable. The GAL opined that break-
ing the bond between Faith and Jerry would be “horrendous”
for her.
   According to the GAL, the visitation schedule typical of
parenting time was “not really appropriate to the situation.”
Because of the trauma Faith had suffered, going back and
forth, especially on Wednesdays, was “disruptive of a structure
and a schedule that I think only belongs in a parental relation-
ship where you have parental bonds.”
   The GAL believed that Faith, like most children, needed
“real permanency and they need to know where they’re going
to go every night, who they’re going to be with every night,
who makes their decisions for them, who can be manipulated,
who can’t be manipulated.” The GAL was concerned that
Faith “will not be able to move on or she will be impaired
in her ability to get structure until she has real permanency.”
That real permanency, explained the GAL, “is someone she
knows to be making all of her decisions for her like a par-
ent would.”
   The GAL did not believe guardianships provided that kind
of permanency. She did not know whether Faith knew the dif-
ference between an adoption and a permanent guardianship.
Nevertheless, she explained:
      But what I can tell you is you have two separate house-
      holds that are not parents. They’re not parental authori-
      ties. They don’t have parental bonds with this child.
      Somebody’s got to establish those parental bonds with
      this child. And there can only really be in this case,
                             - 506 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                  IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                       Cite as 313 Neb. 491

      given her history, that she needs one place to look
      for stability.
The GAL did not have any concerns regarding Jerry and
Stacey’s ability to provide for Faith’s ongoing needs.
   The GAL opined it would be very harmful to Faith if Kelly
was not able to have “grandparental type of contact with her.”
She “would hope that wouldn’t happen in this case.” But,
“[u]nfortunately, you know, in any family, when there’s par-
ents, they can choose or not choose to exclude parties.” There
were, the GAL acknowledged, “no guarantees” with respect to
Faith’s continuing contact with Grace, Kelly, and her extended
family, but she ultimately believed the risks of a permanent
guardianship rather than adoption outweighed the benefits.
In this regard, she opined that because Kelly and Jerry were
“such different people” with “very differing parenting styles”
and who “can agree on very little,” “maintaining a guardian-
ship is a nightmare scenario.”

                7. Order Denying Adoption
   The county court sustained Kelly’s objection to the petition
for adoption, concluding that granting Jerry and Stacey’s peti-
tion was not in Faith’s best interests.
   The court found that a close bond had been established
between Faith and Kelly, Jerry, and Stacey. Grace and Faith are
also “bonded but have differing needs.”
   With respect to Grace, the court elaborated the record was
inadequate to “fully assess the current nature of the relation-
ship between Faith and Grace.” This was in part due to DHHS’
decision to terminate Taylor’s joint therapy sessions with Grace
and Faith. Because of the secession of joint therapy, “it’s
unknown whether the children’s therapeutic needs are evolv-
ing toward, away from or independent of each other.” The
court stated that “[t]his presents the court with a significant
unknown, which in this court’s judgment, causes everyone
to either speculate on the future of their sibling relationship
                             - 507 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                   IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                        Cite as 313 Neb. 491

or just ignore it.” The court concluded that this was “unfair
to Faith.”
   The court found that Faith was adjusting well to living
with Jerry and Stacey. The court recognized that Faith had
“strong feelings of abandonment” and it believed Faith’s call-
ing Jerry and Stacey “dad” and “mom” exemplified the “lay-
ers of emotions children process [when] traumatized by acts
of violence.”
   The court found that Faith’s “needs remain complex as she
goes through attachment phases” and that she is “actively
evaluating, processing, and assigning roles and occasionally
testing limits while working through her emotions.” It would
be “therapeutically shortsighted to diagnose her immediate
needs as representative of her future ones,” and her “treat-
ment will be necessarily ongoing and customized for her
over time.”
   Noting that “[t]he certainty and structure of her surroundings
and those to whom she relies for decision making authority
aren’t exclusive to the adoption process,” the court concluded
that “[h]aving guardians will keep intact the grandchild-
grandparents’ relationships she clearly needs.” It found that
Faith had “established relationships with each of these family
members[,] but not to the exclusion of any of them,” and that
she “needs the security which comes from these attachments.”
The court said, “How the roles of Faith’s family rearrange over
time will be in large measure a result of Faith’s therapeutic
needs and personal preferences,” which “remains an ongo-
ing process.”
   The court concluded it was in Faith’s best interests that
she remain in the custody of Jerry and Stacey under the terms
of the temporary coguardianship and visitation arrangement.
The matter of a permanent guardianship was to be set for
a hearing.
   Jerry and Stacey appeal.
                                   - 508 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     313 Nebraska Reports
                       IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 491

               III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
   Jerry and Stacey assign that the county court erred in not
finalizing Faith’s adoption. They also more specifically assign
the county court erred in determining Kelly had standing
to object to the adoption and in failing to dismiss Kelly’s
objection on those grounds. Further, they specifically assign
that the county court erred in determining adoption was not
in Faith’s best interests after failing to consider the correct
factors in determining best interests, while at the same time
finding it to be in Faith’s best interests to remain in Jerry
and Stacey’s custody; incorrectly focusing on visitation with
extended family as the controlling factor in the best inter-
ests analysis; and failing to consider the recommendation of
the GAL.

                 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
   [1] Whether a party has the right to intervene in a proceed-
ing is a question of law. 1
   [2] When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has
an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the con-
clusion reached by the trial court. 2
   [3] The standard of review in an appeal from a court’s ruling
on an adoption petition is error on the record. 3
1
    Carroll v. Gould, 308 Neb. 12, 952 N.W.2d 1 (2020).
2
    Id.
3
    See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-112 (Cum. Supp. 2022); Neb. Rev. Stat.
    § 25-2733 (Reissue 2016); Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617, 843
    N.W.2d 820 (2014); Carlos H. v. Lindsay M., 283 Neb. 1004, 815 N.W.2d
    168 (2012); In re Guardianship of T.C.W., 235 Neb. 716, 457 N.W.2d
    282 (1990), disapproved on other grounds, In re Adoption of Madysen
    S. et al., 293 Neb. 646, 879 N.W.2d 34 (2016); In re Adoption of C.L.R.
    and J.M.R., 218 Neb. 319, 352 N.W.2d 916 (1984); Peterson v. Jacobitz,
    29 Neb. App. 486, 955 N.W.2d 329 (2021). See, also, In re Adoption of
    Kailynn D., 273 Neb. 849, 733 N.W.2d 856 (2007); In re Adoption of
    Luke, 263 Neb. 365, 640 N.W.2d 374 (2002); In re Adoption of Leslie P.,
    8 Neb. App. 954, 604 N.W.2d 853 (2000).
                                   - 509 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     313 Nebraska Reports
                       IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 491

   [4] When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the
record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law,
is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary,
capricious, nor unreasonable. 4
   [5] In instances when an appellate court is required to
review cases for error appearing on the record, questions of
law are nonetheless reviewed de novo on the record. 5
                           V. ANALYSIS
                    1. Standing to Intervene
   We first address Kelly’s standing under Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 25-328 (Reissue 2016) to intervene in the adoption proceed-
ings commenced by Jerry and Stacey. Section 25-328 provides:
         Any person who has or claims an interest in the mat-
      ter in litigation, in the success of either of the parties to
      an action, or against both, in any action pending or to be
      brought in any of the courts of the State of Nebraska, may
      become a party to an action between any other persons
      or corporations, either by joining the plaintiff in claiming
      what is sought by the complaint, or by uniting with the
      defendants in resisting the claim of the plaintiff, or by
      demanding anything adversely to both the plaintiff and
      defendant, either before or after issue has been joined in
      the action, and before the trial commences.
   [6,7] As a prerequisite to intervention, the intervenor must
have a direct and legal interest of such character that the
4
    State v. McGinn, 303 Neb. 224, 928 N.W.2d 391 (2019), modified on
    denial of rehearing 303 Neb. 931, 932 N.W.2d 83; Schinnerer v. Nebraska
    Diamond Sales Co., 278 Neb. 194, 769 N.W.2d 350 (2009). See, also,
    Houser v. American Paving Asphalt, 299 Neb. 1, 907 N.W.2d 16 (2018);
    Schmunk v. Aquatic Solutions, 29 Neb. App. 940, 962 N.W.2d 581 (2021);
    State v. Keenan, 28 Neb. App. 575, 946 N.W.2d 689 (2020), modified
    on denial of rehearing 28 Neb. App. 697, 946 N.W.2d 693; Flodman v.
    Robinson, 22 Neb. App. 943, 864 N.W.2d 716 (2015); Lesser v. Eagle
    Hills Homeowners’ Assn., 20 Neb. App. 423, 824 N.W.2d 77 (2012).
5
    Stover v. County of Lancaster, 271 Neb. 107, 710 N.W.2d 84 (2006).
                                   - 510 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                       IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 491

intervenor will lose or gain by the direct operation and legal
effect of the judgment which the court may render in the
action. 6 An indirect, remote, or conjectural interest in the result
of a suit is not enough to establish intervention as a matter of
right. 7 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. 8
   The county court held that Kelly has standing under her
legal status as a temporary coguardian of Faith. We agree.
By statute, a temporary guardian has the status of an ordinary
guardian except that the guardianship authority is of limited
duration. 9 Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2612 (Reissue
2016), by accepting appointment, “a guardian submits person-
ally to the jurisdiction of the court in any proceeding relating
to the guardianship that may be instituted by any interested
person.” Further, notice of any proceeding shall be delivered to
the guardian. Under § 30-2613(1), “[a] guardian of a minor has
the powers and responsibilities of a parent . . . .” A guardian
is specifically empowered to “consent to the marriage or adop-
tion of his or her ward.” 10 Finally, a guardian’s authority and
responsibility terminates upon the minor’s adoption. 11
   [8] The statutory scheme governing guardianship contem-
plates the involvement of the guardian in matters concerning
the child, explicitly in adoption proceedings. And, by statute,
the direct operation and legal effect of the adoption of that
child is the loss of a guardian’s legal interest. This con-
fers standing.
 6
     Carroll v. Gould, supra note 1.
 7
     Id.
 8
     In re Interest of Enyce J. & Eternity M., 291 Neb. 965, 870 N.W.2d 413
     (2015).
 9
     See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2611 (Reissue 2016).
10
     § 30-2613(1)(c).
11
     Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2614 (Reissue 2016).
                                     - 511 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       313 Nebraska Reports
                         IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                              Cite as 313 Neb. 491

   We disagree with Jerry and Stacey’s argument that the
coguardians’ being at odds as to whether the petition for adop-
tion should be granted diminishes the legal character of Kelly’s
interest, as a guardian, in the proceedings. We also disagree
with Jerry and Stacey’s argument that because Kelly filed her
objection before she was appointed coguardian—and never
formally amended her objection or entered an appearance as
coguardian—her status as coguardian should not be recognized
in the adoption proceedings. There was no dispute that Kelly
was Faith’s coguardian. It was the same judge who entered the
order appointing Kelly and Jerry as coguardians who specifi-
cally took notice of Kelly’s status as coguardian in finding she
had standing to intervene.
   The county court did not err in finding Kelly had standing
to participate as a party to the adoption proceedings. We need
not address any additional grounds for standing proposed by
Kelly. We turn to the merits of the court’s judgment sustaining
Kelly’s objection and denying Jerry and Stacey’s petition to
adopt Faith.
                        2. Best Interests
   [9] Adoption proceedings were unknown to the common law
and do not depend upon equitable principles. 12 Of the various
statutory conditions to a decree of adoption, at issue in this
appeal is that the court find “such adoption is for the best inter-
ests of such minor child.” 13 The county court found it was not
in Faith’s best interests to be adopted. We review the county
court’s determination for error appearing on the record, 14 which
12
     See In re Petition of Ritchie, 155 Neb. 824, 53 N.W.2d 753 (1952).
13
     See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-109(1) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
14
     See, § 43-112; § 25-2733; Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., supra note 3; Carlos
     H. v. Lindsay M., supra note 3; In re Guardianship of T.C.W., supra note
     3; In re Adoption of C.L.R. and J.M.R., supra note 3; Peterson v. Jacobitz,
     supra note 3. See, also, In re Adoption of Kailynn D., supra note 3; In re
     Adoption of Luke, supra note 3; In re Adoption of Leslie P., supra note 3.
                                     - 512 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                        IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                             Cite as 313 Neb. 491

means we review whether its decision conforms to the law,
is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary,
capricious, nor unreasonable. 15
   [10] Best interests are not specifically defined by Nebraska’s
adoption statutes, 16 and we have not elaborated on the best
interests concept in our case law under petitions for adoption.
Indeed, it does not appear we have ever addressed the merits of
a determination of best interests made in that context.
   It is not unusual for a state’s statutory scheme to fail to
define best interests for purposes of adoption. 17 This is because,
as other courts have explained, the best interests standard does
not have a precise meaning and must embrace a multitude of
varied factual situations. 18 It has been said that the factors to be
considered in determining a child’s best interests are “legion”
and “impossible to catalogue.” 19
   Although best interests factors applicable to other proceed-
ings may overlap with the factors considered in a best interests
analysis under a petition for adoption, it is inappropriate to
simply graft onto adoption statutes the factors, preferences, or
definitions set forth in statutes or case law that governs other
matters such as habeas corpus or custody in dissolution and
15
     See, State v. McGinn, supra note 4; Schinnerer v. Nebraska Diamond
     Sales Co., supra note 4. See, also, Houser v. American Paving Asphalt,
     supra note 4; Schmunk v. Aquatic Solutions, supra note 4; State v. Keenan,
     supra note 4; Flodman v. Robinson, supra note 4; Lesser v. Eagle Hills
     Homeowners’ Assn., supra note 4.
16
     See In re Adoption of Kassandra B. & Nicholas B., 248 Neb. 912, 540
     N.W.2d 554 (1995) (Connolly, J., dissenting; Gerrard, J., joins).
17
     See Susan Nauss Exon, The Best Interest of the Child: Going Beyond
     Legalese to Empathize with a Client’s Leap of Faith, 24 J. Juv. L. 1
     (2004).
18
     See Petition of D.I.S., 494 A.2d 1316 (D.C. App. 1985).
19
     In re M.F., 1 S.W.3d 524, 532 (Mo. App. 1999) (internal quotation marks
     omitted).
                                       - 513 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       313 Nebraska Reports
                          IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                               Cite as 313 Neb. 491

dependency proceedings. 20 The factors considered should fully
reflect the legal context in which the analysis of best interests
is made.
   Biological connections have generally been recognized as
a significant consideration in evaluating whether granting a
petition for adoption is in a child’s best interests. In some
cases, the biological relationship weighs in favor of the child’s
best interests, while in others, it could hinder it. 21 Keeping
siblings or half siblings together is a relevant and important
factor for the court to consider in an adoption case. 22 Although
not directly applicable, the importance of this consideration
is reflected in state statutes, including Nebraska’s, 23 which
provide for preferences for placement of siblings together in
prospective adoptive or foster homes. 24
   In terms of evaluating the suitability of the proposed adop-
tive parents and their home, permissible considerations include
psychological parentage 25; continuity of care 26; whether
the adoptive parents will provide the child with good care and
a stable home 27; the ability of petitioners to meet the needs of
20
     See, Matter of Adoption of Hannah L., 390 P.3d 1153 (Alaska 2017); Brett
     M. v. Vesely, 276 Neb. 765, 757 N.W.2d 360 (2008); In re B.O., 177 P.3d
     584 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007); Petition of Schomer, 89 Ill. App. 3d 92, 411
     N.E.2d 554, 44 Ill. Dec. 432 (1980); In re Dickhaus, 41 Ohio Misc. 1, 321
     N.E.2d 800 (1974).
21
     See In re C.D.G., 108 S.W.3d 669 (Mo. App. 2002).
22
     See, M.L.S. v. C.S., 710 S.W.2d 452 (Mo. App. 1986); 2 Ann M.
     Haralambie, Handling Child Custody, Abuse and Adoption Cases § 14:9
     (Supp. 2022-23). See, also, People in Interest of E.M.H., 873 N.W.2d 485
     (S.D. 2015).
23
     Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1311.02 (Cum. Supp. 2022).
24
     See, e.g., Jill Elaine Hasday, Siblings in Law, 65 Vand. L. Rev. 897 (2012).
25
     Petition of D.I.S., supra note 18. See, also, e.g., In re M.F., supra note 19.
26
     Petition of D.I.S., supra note 18.
27
     In re M.F., supra note 19.
                                   - 514 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                       IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 491

a child with a specific cultural, racial, and ethnic background 28;
the stability of the potential adoptive home 29; and the age and
health of the adoptive parents. 30
   Although Jerry and Stacey concede that if Kelly had pre-
sented a “competing adoption petition,” 31 Faith’s biological
connections to Kelly and Grace would be a proper consider-
ation, they argue that when the court is presented with only
one adoption petition, its analysis is more truncated. In such a
situation, they argue the only factors appropriate to the court’s
best interests analysis are those pertaining to the fitness of the
petitioners to parent the child.
   Jerry and Stacey argue that the law presumes it to be in
the best interests of a child without parental care to obtain the
permanency of adoption as quickly as possible. Therefore, it
must be presumed that granting the first qualifying adoption
petition is in the child’s best interests unless the petitioners are
found to be unsuitable to the task of parenting that child. They
acknowledge that Nebraska requires as a prerequisite to adop-
tion that the child has resided with the petitioners for at least 6
months next preceding the entering of the decree of adoption. 32
They do not explain how the presentation of competing adop-
tion petitions in Nebraska is possible.
   In support of their argument that the court should focus only
on the suitability of the prospective parents when presented
with a singular petition for adoption, Jerry and Stacey rely on
G.S. v. T.B. 33 The court in G.S. held, under a statute establish-
ing a right of children to the permanence and stability of
28
     Id.
29
     Id.
30
     In re Adoption of Tachick, 60 Wis. 2d 540, 210 N.W.2d 865 (1973). See,
     also, Annot., 84 A.L.R.3d 665 (1978).
31
     Brief for appellant at 23.
32
     See § 43-109(1)(a).
33
     G.S. v. T.B., 985 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 2008).
                                        - 515 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       313 Nebraska Reports
                         IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                              Cite as 313 Neb. 491

adoptive placements, the “focal issue [in a best interests analy-
sis] is the fitness and appropriateness of the petitioners as
adopting parents and . . . not whether the children should or
should not be adopted or should live with the petitioners in
some other form of custody such as guardianship.” 34 According
to the court, that determination was “made by the Legislature
in favor of adoption over guardianship when adoption is avail-
able and serves the children’s best interests.” 35 The court held
that a trial court abuses its discretion in denying an adoption
petition when it determines the petitioners are fit prospective
adoptive parents but denies the adoption despite this finding
because it is in the child’s best interests to ensure a grandpar-
ent’s involvement in the child’s life. 36
   Jerry and Stacey believe the Legislature has similarly man-
dated, through Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533(5) (Reissue 2016), a
presumption in favor of adoption that can be rebutted only by a
finding that the prospective adoptive parents are unfit or inap-
propriate. We disagree.
   [11] Section 43-533(5) states:
      When families cannot be reunited and when active paren-
      tal involvement is absent, adoption shall be aggressively
      pursued. Absent the possibility of adoption other per-
      manent settings shall be pursued. In either situation, the
      health, safety, and best interests of the child shall be the
      overriding concern. Within that context, preference shall
      be given to relatives for the permanent placement of
      the child.
By its plain language, § 43-533(5) does not set forth a legal
presumption controlling a best interests analysis, nor does it
limit the factors a trial court may consider in deciding whether
granting a petition for adoption is in the child’s best interests.
34
     Id. at 983.
35
     Id.
36
     See G.S. v. T.B., supra note 33.
                                      - 516 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       313 Nebraska Reports
                         IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                              Cite as 313 Neb. 491

Section 43-533(5) provides that when pursuing either adoption
or “other permanent settings,” the best interests of the child
shall be the “overriding concern.”
   [12,13] Rebuttable presumptions or determinative factors
are generally disfavored in an analysis of a child’s best inter-
ests. 37 It has been said that no single factor should be allowed
to outweigh all others. 38 This is because the weight to be given
to any factor necessarily differs from case to case due to each
factor’s interrelation to other factors. 39 Courts emphasize that
best interests must remain a flexible and unique determina-
tion based on specific evidence relating to that child. 40 If the
Legislature had wished to set forth a rebuttable presumption
that adoption is in the child’s best interests, it could have
clearly set forth such a provision, but it did not.
   [14,15] Certainly, the beneficial permanency of adoption
is an important consideration that must be weighed in a best
interests analysis under an adoption petition. However, we
cannot predetermine, as a matter of law, how that factor might
interrelate to other factors presented under the facts specific to
the child in question. In the end, under both §§ 43-533(5) and
43-109, the paramount consideration that must be made before
an adoption is “possible” is that it is in the child’s best interests
to grant the petition. Section 43-533(5) does not limit a court’s
flexibility under an adoption petition to make an individualized
determination of the child’s best interests.
   Thus, we agree with other jurisdictions that hold it is
permissible for a court to consider, as part of its best inter-
ests analysis, the finality effect of adoption on other family
attachments and decide to maintain the status quo of a joint
37
     See Petition of D.I.S., supra note 18. See, also, In re M.F., supra note 19.
38
     2 Am. Jur. 2d Adoption § 129 (2014).
39
     In re Adoption of Tachick, supra note 30.
40
     See Petition of D.I.S., supra note 18. See, also, In re M.F., supra note 19.
                                    - 517 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                        IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                             Cite as 313 Neb. 491

custody arrangement. 41 For example, in State in Interest of
P.T., 42 the court affirmed the lower court’s determination that
it was not in the child’s best interests to grant a petition by
the maternal grandparents to adopt the child, reasoning that
maintaining the status quo of a joint custody guardianship
arrangement with the paternal grandmother was preferable.
The lower court found it would be detrimental to the child’s
best interests to put one party in control of the relationship.
Instead, it was essential to the child’s well-being to maintain
the close and loving relationships the child had with both the
maternal and paternal grandparents. The lower court recog-
nized the reality of adoption was that it would permanently
terminate familial relationships with other relatives. In affirm-
ing, the appellate court rejected the maternal grandparents’
argument that it was speculative that adoption would change
the bonds the child had with the paternal grandmother. It held
the lower court did not err in determining it was in the child’s
best interests to have a flexible custody arrangement with all
grandparents rather than a permanent adoption that would
legally terminate the child’s familial relationship with her
paternal grandmother.
   Similarly, in Matter of the Adoption of M.J.W., 43 the appel-
late court affirmed an order of the lower court denying the
maternal grandparents’ petition to adopt, because it would
disrupt the child’s relationship with the paternal grandpar-
ents. There was antipathy between the paternal and maternal
grandparents, especially on the part of the maternal grandpar-
ents with whom the child resided. The child did not reside
with the paternal grandparents, and the paternal grandparents
41
     See, Matter of the Adoption of M.J.W., 8 Wash. App. 2d 906, 438 P.3d
     1244 (2019); State in Interest of P.T., 159 So. 3d 1184 (La. App. 2015);
     2 Haralambie, supra note 22, §§ 14:1 and 14:25. See, also, Petition of
     Schomer, supra note 20.
42
     State in Interest of P.T., supra note 41.
43
     Matter of the Adoption of M.J.W., supra note 41.
                                     - 518 -
              Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                       313 Nebraska Reports
                         IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                              Cite as 313 Neb. 491

did not petition to adopt. Nevertheless, the GAL testified
that the paternal grandparents played a vital role in the
orphaned child’s emotional health and well-being and should
not be excluded from the child’s upbringing. The lower court
found it would harm the well-being of the child, who strug-
gled with anxiety, to lose the relationship with either set of
grandparents. Based on the maternal grandparents’ animosity
toward the paternal grandparents, the court reasoned it was
likely adoption by the maternal grandparents would result in
the diminishment or cessation of visitation with the pater-
nal grandparents. The lower court concluded that the child
had continuity, consistency, and stability under the visitation
arrangement. In affirming, the appellate court held that the
lower court did not abuse its discretion in finding it was not
in the child’s best interests to “upset the status quo that had
been so critical” to the child’s development. 44
   [16-18] Reducing best interests to whether the first person
to the courthouse with an adoption petition is good enough to
carry out parental responsibilities for a child is inconsistent
with the comprehensive and individualized consideration tra-
ditionally expected of trial courts in determining a child’s best
interests. Adoption creates a new family and confers upon the
adoptive parents the full panoply of parental rights and respon-
sibilities. The best interests of the child who is the subject of
an adoption petition must remain a flexible and unique deter-
mination based on specific evidence relating to that child. We
hold that in determining whether adoption is in a child’s best
interests, a court may consider the effect of adoption on preex-
isting family attachments and weigh the alternative of continu-
ing the status quo of a guardianship.
   The county court stated Faith had firmly established rela-
tionships with both grandparents and that she “clearly needs”
both relationships. The court also found Faith was bonded
with Grace. The court found “Faith needs the security which
44
     Id. at 914, 438 P.3d at 1249.
                                  - 519 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      313 Nebraska Reports
                       IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F.
                            Cite as 313 Neb. 491

comes from these attachments.” These findings are supported
by the evidence.
   Ultimately, the court determined that Faith’s need for the
continuation of the strong attachments with the family mem-
bers of both households weighed more heavily than the ben-
efits of the permanency of adoption. It determined that Faith’s
needs for “certainty and structure of her surroundings and
those to whom she relies for decision making authority” could
be adequately met through a guardianship. Jerry and Stacey
argue that if Faith were adopted, Kelly would still legally
be a “grandparent” for the purposes of Nebraska’s grandpar-
ent visitation statutes 45 and could adequately continue her
relationship with Faith by seeking some unknown amount of
court-ordered grandparent visitation under that scheme. We
need not decide that legal question in this appeal. For a child
who currently needs certainty and consistency in her familial
attachments in both grandparents’ households, the court’s
order denying the petition to adopt ensured maintenance of
the status quo.
   We recognize here the superior position, ability, and oppor-
tunity of the trial court to observe the witnesses. 46 Under
the record presented, we cannot say that the county court’s
order denying the petition to adopt was contrary to law,
unsupported by competent evidence, or arbitrary, capricious,
or unreasonable.
                    VI. CONCLUSION
  For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the
county court.
                                               Affirmed.
45
     See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1801 to 43-1803 (Reissue 2016).
46
     See Luebker v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 93 Ark. App. 173, 217
     S.W.3d 172 (2005).