In re Interest of Jordon B.

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a juvenile court order changing Jordon B.’s placement. It held that foster parents lacked standing to appeal the placement order and had no right to intervene, and that Andrew Todd was not Jordon’s sibling under the Foster Care Review Act because they did not share a common parent. The court also concluded that the record did not show a basis for appointing counsel for the guardian ad litem or new counsel for Jordon.

Holdings

1. Foster parents who were never awarded custody are not custodians or guardians under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2,106.01(2)(c), and foster parents therefore lack standing to appeal a juvenile court order changing a child's placement.
2. Foster parents have a statutory right to participate in review hearings, but that participation is less than party status; they are not entitled to intervene as a matter of right and cannot intervene equitably where the juvenile court lacks statutory authority to permit it.
3. An appellate court may exercise jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying intervention even when the appellant lacks standing to appeal the juvenile court's final order or judgment on the merits.
4. A sibling under the Foster Care Review Act is a person with whom the child shares a common parent or parents. Sharing siblings in common does not make two people siblings, so Andrew was not Jordon's sibling because they had no common parent.
5. The issue was not appropriate for appellate consideration because the guardian ad litem did not request appointment of counsel in the juvenile court and the record did not show that the issue was presented to or decided by that court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Todds, as foster parents, had standing to appeal the juvenile court's placement order.
2. Whether foster parents had a statutory or equitable right to intervene in the juvenile proceeding.
3. Whether Andrew had standing to appeal the placement order based on his alleged status as a sibling, foster parent, or both.
4. Whether Andrew was a sibling of Jordon under the Nebraska Foster Care Review Act and therefore had a limited statutory right to intervene.
5. Whether the juvenile court erred by failing to appoint counsel for the guardian ad litem or new counsel for Jordon when the guardian ad litem's report was challenged.
6. Whether the juvenile court's change-of-placement order should be affirmed.

Disposition

affirmed