A-25-0792, In re Guardianship of Nataly F.G., A Child Under 18 Years of Age. Gloria G.V. and Robin F.A. v. Robin F.G. (Appellant)
County Court for Lancaster County, County Judge Holly Parsley
Attorney for Appellant: David Victor Chipman (Monzón Guerra Law Firm)
No appearance by Appellees (Gloria G.V. and Robin F.A.)
Amicus Curiae Briefs: University of Nebraska College of Law Immigration Clinic & ACLU of Nebraska
Civil Action: Appointment of guardian, request for immigration-related findings
Action taken by the Trial Court: The trial court entered an order denying Robin F.G.’s petition seeking to establish a minor guardianship for his sister, Nataly F.G. Because the court denied Robin’s request to be appointed as Nataly’s guardian, it did not reach his request for immigration-related findings.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Did the trial court err in failing to appoint Robin as Nataly’s guardian? Did the trial court err in failing to make the requested immigration-related factual findings concerning Nataly?
Background: Nataly, a minor, traveled from Honduras to the United States by herself. She was detained by the Department of Homeland Security after crossing the border. Nataly’s adult brother, Robin, who resides in Nebraska, accepted immigration sponsorship of Nataly, and in September 2023, federal immigration agents released Nataly to Robin’s care. Robin’s duties as Nataly’s sponsor for immigration purposes require him to establish a legal guardianship over Nataly, if possible.
In June 2025, Robin filed a petition for guardianship of Nataly. He asked the trial court to appoint him as Nataly’s guardian and to make specific factual findings pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1238(b), including findings that reunification with Nataly’s parents in Honduras was not viable due to abandonment and neglect and that it would not be in Nataly’s best interests to be returned to Honduras.
Both Robin and Nataly appeared and testified at the guardianship hearing. No one appeared in opposition to the petition. Following the hearing, the trial court issued an order finding Robin did not present sufficient evidence of suspension or termination of the parental rights Nataly’s parents by prior or current circumstances and, thus, denied and dismissed the guardianship petition. Because the court had not made a custody decision (i.e., appointment of a guardian), the court did not reach Robin’s request for immigration-related factual findings.
On appeal, Robin argues that the evidence supported his appointment as Nataly’s guardian because he was a suitable caretaker and had been caring for Nataly exclusively with her (and his) parents’ consent. He argues that the evidence, including the fact that Nataly’s parents have not objected to the guardianship demonstrated the suspension of their parental rights by current circumstances required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2608(d). Section 30‑2608(d) allows the court to appoint a guardian for a minor if all parental rights of custody have been terminated or suspended by prior or current circumstances or prior court order. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30‑2611(b), upon hearing, if the court finds that a qualified person seeks appointment, venue is proper, the required notices have been given, the requirements of section 30‑2608 have been met, and the welfare and best interests of the minor will be served by the requested appointment, it shall make the appointment.
Robin also argues that the trial court should have found the guardianship to be in Nataly’s best interests and made the requested factual findings under § 43-1238(b). A county court with a jurisdictional basis under § 43-1238(a) and which has made an initial child custody determination, such as appointing a guardian, has the authority to make immigration related factual findings where the evidence is sufficient and the court has been requested to do so. Section 43-1238(b) authorizes factual findings regarding the abuse, abandonment, or neglect of the child; the nonviability of reunification with at least one of the child’s parents due to such abuse, abandonment, neglect, or a similar basis under state law; and whether it would be in the best interests of such child to be removed from the United States to a foreign country, including the child’s country of origin or last habitual residence.