In re Interest of Jordon B.

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

In re Interest of Jordon B.

Case Number
Call Date
September 2, 2022
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Case Location
Court Type
County Court
Case Summary

S-22-0019 In re Interest of Jordon B.

Appeal from the County Court for Dodge County sitting as a juvenile court, Judge Kenneth J. Vampola

Attorneys: Linsey A. Camplin & Sam Baue (McHenry, Haszard, Roth, Hupp, Burkholder, Blomenberg & Camplin, P.C., L.L.O. for foster parents, Appellants/Cross-Appellees); Brianna L. McLarty (Dodge County Attorney’s Office for the State, Appellee); Pamela L. Hopkins (Hopkins Law Office, GAL, Appellee/Cross-Appellant); Timothy E. Sopinski (Sopinski Law Office for Allen B., Appellee); Adam Tripp (Tripp Law Office for Leah B.); Leslie E. Remus (Special Assistant Attorney General for Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Appellee)

Juvenile: Intervention; Standing; Placement

Proceedings below: The mother filed a Motion to Change placement, and foster parents sought to intervene, sought for the siblings of the minor child (J.D. and L.D.) to intervene, and sought to place the child with his siblings.  The trial court denied the Appellants’ request to intervene for lack of standing.  The juvenile court allowed J.D. and L.D. to intervene, granted the mother’s motion to change placement, and denied all other requested relief. 

Issues: On appeal, Appellants assert the following assignments of error:  1) The juvenile court erred in finding that Appellants had no standing to intervene in this matter, either as placement or as a sibling; 2) The juvenile court erred in granting the mother’s motion for placement change; 3) The juvenile court erred in denying the siblings’ motion for placement of the minor child with his siblings, J.D. and L.D.; 4) The juvenile court erred in concluding that the limited right to intervene to seek “joint-sibling placement, sibling visitation, or ongoing interaction with their sibling” belongs to minor siblings only; and 5) The juvenile court erred in denying the siblings’ motion to stay and motion to reconsider and the foster parents’ motion to reconsider.

The Guardian ad Litem asserts the following assignments of error on cross-appeal:  1) The juvenile court erred when it failed to appoint counsel for the Guardian ad Litem or the minor child when Intervener attacked the credibility and veracity of the Guardian ad Litem report in the same proceeding where the Guardian ad Litem was already acting as counsel; and 2) The juvenile court erred when it found that the foster parent was a sibling of the subject minor child.

Schedule Code