In re Interest of Meridian H.

798 N.W.2d 96 (2011)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Interest of Meridian H.

Nebraska Supreme Court
798 N.W.2d 96 (2011)

Facts

In September 2007, Tiffani H. (defendant) got into a car accident with her three-year-old daughter, Meridian H., in the car. Tiffani went to jail for drunk driving, and Meridian was placed in the care of foster parents. Meridian had two older siblings who had been placed in foster care before she was born, when Tiffani and the children’s father relinquished their parental rights. Meridian’s siblings, Damon and Aleeah, were then adopted by Jeffrey and Karen H. (intervenors), who lived in Minnesota. Jeffrey and Karen became aware of the situation with Meridian in fall 2007 and let the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (the agency) (plaintiff) know that they would be happy to foster Meridian so that she could be placed with her siblings. In March 2008, the agency placed Meridian with foster parents Shane and Brandi K. (intervenors). After Tiffani’s incarceration and release, the agency provided services to Tiffani pursuant to a plan to reunify her with Meridian. However, by February 2009, Tiffani decided that she wanted to relinquish her parental rights. The juvenile court considered placing Meridian with either set of foster parents. Jeffrey and Karen, Shane and Brandi, and the children’s maternal grandparents (intervenors) sought to intervene after the motion to terminate Tiffani’s rights was filed. In March 2010, Jeffrey and Karen filed a motion to have Meridian’s placement changed to their home. However, in September 2010, the juvenile court terminated Tiffani’s parental rights and denied Jeffrey and Karen’s motion. The court decided that it was in Meridian’s best interests to remain with her current foster parents. Jeffrey and Karen appealed on a number of grounds and alleged that the court violated public policy by not placing siblings together and erred in failing to recognize Damon and Aleeah’s fundamental liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause in preserving their family unit. The maternal grandparents also filed a cross-appeal in favor of placement with Jeffrey and Karen.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Stephan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership