## Facts

- Meridian H., age three, was adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) in December 2007 and placed in foster care in Nebraska for nearly her entire life.
- Meridian’s two older siblings had previously been adopted by Jeffrey H. and Karen H. in Minnesota after the biological mother relinquished parental rights to those children.
- The initial permanency goal for Meridian was reunification with her mother; Meridian remained largely in one foster home with Shane K. and Brandi K.
- The juvenile court ordered a home study of the siblings’ adoptive parents’ home; the home study and a separate placement suitability assessment recommended placing Meridian with the siblings’ adoptive parents.
- The juvenile court later ordered an evaluation of contact and the effect of changing placement; after observing visits, the evaluator recommended Meridian remain with the foster parents due to the absence of an established emotional bond with the siblings and likely harm from removal.
- After the State moved to terminate the mother’s parental rights, the foster parents, siblings’ adoptive parents, and maternal grandparents were permitted to intervene.
- The siblings’ adoptive parents moved to change placement so Meridian would live with them and her siblings; the maternal grandparents supported that placement.
- The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights and denied the change of placement, finding Meridian had not lived with or known the siblings and that removal would likely cause Meridian emotional harm.

## Issues

1. Whether the denial of the motion to change placement was a final, appealable order affecting the substantial rights of the intervening siblings (through their adoptive parents) or maternal grandparents.
2. Whether the siblings and maternal grandparents had standing to appeal the placement determination, including whether any statutory, constitutional, or federal-law right was implicated.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal for lack of standing.
- The court held the placement order did not affect any legally cognizable right of the siblings or maternal grandparents.
- The court rejected the claim that siblings possessed a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in placement that survived the termination or relinquishment of the parent-child relationship.
- The court held the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act did not create a privately enforceable right to placement or standing to challenge placement.

## Legal Principles

- Standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite; without it, an appellate court lacks authority to reach the merits of a placement dispute.
- A final, appealable order in a juvenile matter requires an effect on a party’s substantial rights; the analysis depends on whether the appellant has a legally protected interest at stake.
- Constitutional protections for family relationships are rooted in the parent-child relationship; after lawful termination or relinquishment of that relationship, derivative claims by other relatives generally lack constitutional grounding.
- Federal child-welfare statutes that function as funding conditions and policy directives do not, without clear rights-creating language, confer privately enforceable substantive rights to dictate placement outcomes.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the intervenors’ placement appeals because siblings and grandparents lacked standing: neither Nebraska law nor federal law gave them an enforceable right to challenge the juvenile court’s decision to keep the child with her foster parents after termination proceedings.


In re Interest of Meridian H., 798 N.W.2d 96 (Neb. 2011)