In re Guardianship of Elizabeth H.

11 Neb. App. 572, 581, 657 N.W.2d 25, 33 (2003) (Sievers,
Judge, concurring). We emphasize the importance of using this
procedural device in the future.
Motion overruled, and cause
reManded with direction.
in re G uardianship of elizabeth h., a Minor .
beth r., appellant, v. thoMas h.
and susan h., appellees.
771 N.W.2d 185
Filed July 14, 2009. 	No. A-08-830.
1. Guardians and Conservators: Appeal and Error. Appeals of matters arising
under the Nebraska Probate Code are reviewed for error on the record.
2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing
on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported
by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
3. ____: ____. An appellate court, in reviewing a judgment for errors appearing
on the record, will not substitute its factual findings for those of the lower court
where competent evidence supports those findings.
4. ____: ____. On questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach its
own conclusions independent of those reached by the lower courts.
5. Guardians and Conservators. A guardianship is no more than a temporary cus-
tody arrangement established for the well-being of a child.
6. Guardians and Conservators: Parental Rights. The appointment of a guard-
ian is not a de facto termination of parental rights, which results in a final and
complete severance of the child from the parent and removes the entire bundle of
parental rights. Rather, guardianships give parents an opportunity to temporarily
relieve themselves of the burdens involved in raising a child, thereby enabling
parents to take those steps necessary to better their situation so they can resume
custody of their child in the future.
7. Guardians and Conservators: Child Custody. Granting one legal custody of a
child confers neither parenthood nor adoption; a guardian is subject to removal at
any time.
8. Guardians and Conservators. Guardianships are temporary and depend upon
the circumstances existing at the time.
9. Guardians and Conservators: Child Custody: Parental Rights. The
parental preference principle applies in guardianship proceedings that affect
child custody.
10. Child Custody: Parental Rights: Presumptions. The parental preference prin-
ciple establishes a rebuttable presumption that the best interests of a child are
served by reuniting the child with his or her parent.
752 	17 NebRASkA APPellATe RePORTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:14 AM CST

11. Child Custody: Parental Rights. The parental preference principle provides
that a parent has a natural right to the custody of his or her child which trumps
the interest of strangers to the parent-child relationship and the preferences of
the child.
12. Guardians and Conservators: Parental Rights: Proof. An individual who
opposes the termination of a guardianship bears the burden of proving by clear
and convincing evidence that the biological or adoptive parent either is unfit or
has forfeited his or her right to custody. Absent such proof, the constitutional
dimensions of the relationship between parent and child require termination of
the guardianship and reunification with the parent.
13. Guardians and Conservators: Parental Rights. The parental preference prin-
ciple must be applied to initially determine whether to appoint a guardian over a
parent’s objection.
14. Guardians and Conservators: Parental Rights: Proof. An individual who seeks
appointment as a guardian over the objection of a biological or adoptive parent
bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the biological
or adoptive parent is unfit or has forfeited his or her right to custody. Absent such
proof, the constitutional dimensions of the relationship between parent and child
require a court to deny the request for a guardianship.
15. Parent and Child: Words and Phrases. Parental unfitness means a personal
deficiency or incapacity which has prevented, or will probably prevent, perform-
ance of a reasonable parental obligation in child rearing and which has caused, or
probably will result in, detriment to a child’s well-being.
16. Guardians and Conservators. The “fitness” standard applied in guardianship
appointment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2608 (Reissue 2008) is analogous to
a juvenile court finding that it would be contrary to a juvenile’s welfare to
return home.
17. Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal that
was not presented to or passed upon by the trial court.
Appeal from the County Court for Douglas County: thoMas
G. Mc Q uade, Judge. Affirmed.
Sandra Stern for appellant.
C.G. (Dooley) Jolly, of Forsberg & Jolly law, P.C., l.l.O.,
for appellees.
irwin, carlson, and Moore, Judges.
Moore, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Thomas H. and Susan H. filed a petition for guardianship of
their granddaughter, elizabeth H. elizabeth’s natural mother,
beth R., objected to the guardianship. Following a trial, the
Douglas County Court found beth to be unfit and granted the
IN Re GUARDIANSHIP OF elIzAbeTH H. 	753
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 752

amended petition for guardianship. beth now appeals, and for
the reasons set forth herein, we affirm.
bACkGROUND
Thomas and Susan filed this action to establish guardianship
of their granddaughter, elizabeth. Thomas and Susan’s daugh-
ter and elizabeth’s natural mother is beth. elizabeth’s father
was incarcerated at the time of the hearing on this matter, but
received notice and appeared telephonically for some of the
proceedings. elizabeth was born in April 2002, and beth there-
after gave birth to three sons, born in April 2005, May 2006,
and January 2008.
On January 22, 2008, Thomas and Susan filed a petition
for guardianship of elizabeth alleging that both beth and
elizabeth’s father were unable or unwilling to provide the
requisite care and supervision that elizabeth required. They
also asked the court to appoint a temporary guardian, pending
notice and hearing on permanent guardianship, asserting that
beth had abandoned elizabeth and that elizabeth’s father was
incarcerated. On February 26, the county court issued letters of
temporary coguardianship to Thomas and Susan, and they filed
acceptances the same day.
On March 7, 2008, beth filed an answer to the petition for
guardianship, stating that she was willing, able, and competent
to care for elizabeth, had not abandoned her, and had requested
elizabeth’s return on numerous occasions. beth asked the court
to deny the guardianship and order elizabeth to be returned
to her.
On April 15, 2008, beth moved to set aside the temporary
guardianship. A hearing on that motion was held on May 21.
The record does not reflect that the court explicitly ruled on the
motion, but in an order dated May 21, 2008, the court ordered a
permanent guardianship hearing and therefore implicitly denied
it. The order also allowed visitation, but set forth no specific
visitation requirements.
On May 21, 2008, Thomas and Susan filed an amended
petition for guardianship, which the court heard on June 30.
Thomas and Susan called five witnesses to testify: beth;
Susan; Thomas; Sonya R., who is beth’s former mother-in-law;
754 	17 NebRASkA APPellATe RePORTS

and an employee at the daycare that elizabeth attended in
2004. beth testified in her own behalf and called two addi-
tional witnesses: a family support worker and visitation spe-
cialist, who had observed her recent visits with elizabeth, and
a family friend.
beth was 24 years old at the time of the trial and has four
children—elizabeth, who was then 6 years old, and three sons
who were then 3 years old, 2 years old, and 5 months old.
each of the four children has a different father. beth was in
a relationship with elizabeth’s father for approximately 2 or
3 weeks. He was incarcerated for attempted murder at the
time of the trial. beth had had some contact with him since
elizabeth’s birth; she had sent him pictures of her children,
and he had sent her letters, although she rarely ever sent a let-
ter back to him.
After elizabeth was born, beth lived with her parents until
elizabeth was 2 or 21⁄2 years old. While they were living with
Thomas and Susan, beth worked and elizabeth went to day-
care during beth’s work hours. Susan testified that for the first
year of elizabeth’s life, beth was a good mother, but then she
became more interested in “doing things” with her friends.
Susan said beth also took elizabeth to daycare when beth had
the day off from work instead of spending time with her. Susan
described the upstairs portion of the house where beth lived
with elizabeth as “shocking” and stated that there were soiled
diapers on the floor in all of the rooms, the crib sheet was so
dirty that it was stiff, and there were several old bottles “all
over the floor.”
In approximately January 2004, beth moved out of Thomas
and Susan’s home and she and elizabeth moved in with a man,
with whom beth lived for approximately 4 or 5 months. During
her deposition, beth was unable to remember the man’s last
name. beth took elizabeth to live with Thomas and Susan on
March 7. Susan testified that beth contacted her and Thomas
and asked if elizabeth could stay with them while she got back
on her feet. beth acknowledged that she “wasn’t in a good spot
for a long time.” elizabeth has not returned to live with beth,
and beth has not returned to live at Thomas and Susan’s home
with elizabeth since that time.
IN Re GUARDIANSHIP OF elIzAbeTH H. 	755
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 752

During the first few weeks that elizabeth lived with Thomas
and Susan, they kept elizabeth during the week and beth
picked her up from daycare on Friday afternoon, kept her over
the weekend, and returned her on Sunday afternoon. Susan
stated that they suggested that arrangement because beth was
partying and they did not want to give her free rein, because
they felt she needed to take time to take care of her child.
On March 21, 2004, after a weekend visit, beth returned
elizabeth with an injury, which Susan and beth both described
as a burn, to her nose and upper lip. A photograph of the
injury appears in the record. beth testified that elizabeth
received the injury while visiting elizabeth’s father. beth tes-
tified that she dropped elizabeth off with elizabeth’s father
for an hour and that when she returned to pick her up, she
had the injury. beth also testified that she took elizabeth to
get medical treatment, paid for the medical appointment, and
filed a police report regarding the incident. Susan testified,
however, that when she asked beth how the injury occurred,
beth responded that she was in the next room for a couple
of hours and that when she came out, elizabeth’s nose was
burned. Susan also said beth told her that she took elizabeth
to the emergency room, but that she was told they would
not treat elizabeth because beth could not tell them how
elizabeth sustained the injury. elizabeth has not seen her
father since the injury.
On March 24, 2004, following the injury, Susan suggested
to beth that Susan and Thomas keep elizabeth full time so
elizabeth would have more stability. beth quickly agreed.
Susan recalled that beth did not see elizabeth for 6 months
after that. beth called once during that timeframe to visit, but
because it was going to be late in the evening, Susan suggested
that beth come when she had a day off. Susan testified that
beth knew where elizabeth was living with Thomas and Susan,
their telephone number had not changed, they did not attempt
to hide elizabeth or interfere in the mother-daughter relation-
ship, and they never indicated that beth was not welcome in
their home.
beth was convicted of driving under the influence in 2005.
In April 2005, beth gave birth to a son. In May 2006, she gave
756 	17 NebRASkA APPellATe RePORTS

birth to another son. beth married Nick R., that son’s father,
in July 2005. The couple separated in July 2006 and divorced
thereafter. While they were married, beth filed a petition for
a protection order against Nick and assault charges were also
filed against him. beth stated that during the time she was
married, she was in a position to take elizabeth back. She
stated that she prepared a room for elizabeth and was saving
to buy clothes for her. beth requested that Thomas and Susan
return elizabeth to her in April 2006 while she was still mar-
ried, but reunification did not occur. Susan testified that she
and Thomas encouraged beth to establish a relationship with
elizabeth before she took her back because they were essen-
tially strangers to one another at that time. However, beth did
not follow up by spending time with elizabeth. beth’s request
in April 2006 was the only instance in which beth asked
Thomas and Susan to return elizabeth, aside from the pres-
ent case.
Sonya, Nick’s mother, testified regarding a home where
Nick and beth lived with beth’s two older sons during their
marriage. This was the same home to which beth testified she
made preparations to bring elizabeth to live with her. Sonya
testified that the home was a mess with clutter and that there
were numerous broken beer bottles on the step and in the
driveway. At one point, beth left her two older sons with Sonya
for a period of less than 2 weeks. During that time, Nick was
in jail and beth spent time in the hospital because Nick had
abused her. In August 2006, beth moved out of the house she
shared with Nick and moved into an apartment with her two
older sons.
In February or March 2007, beth moved in with her cur-
rent boyfriend, Mike M., who was then 45 years old. A son
was born to Mike and beth in January 2008. beth was still
living at that residence at the time of the hearing. The house-
hold includes eight people: Mike, beth, beth’s three sons, and
Mike’s two children and grandson. Mike was recently charged
with criminally assaulting Nick. beth testified that Mike fully
supports her and her children and that she is a stay-at-home
mother who does not work outside of the home. She acknowl-
edged that if she and Mike were to separate, she was unsure
IN Re GUARDIANSHIP OF elIzAbeTH H. 	757
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 752

where she would live, but testified that she had friends with
whom she could stay.
For easter in April 2007, beth, Mike, and the two older
sons visited elizabeth at Thomas and Susan’s home. They
took two stuffed animals to elizabeth. Susan recalled that
beth took several pictures of herself with elizabeth and of
elizabeth with her half brothers and that because this had
never happened before, it confused elizabeth. Susan stated
that at that time, she did not know where beth was living and
did not have her telephone number. beth acknowledged that
she did not give Thomas and Susan her telephone number
for a period of time, but stated that she did give them Mike’s
telephone number.
Susan testified that in her opinion, beth had abandoned
elizabeth. She reasoned that during the past 4 years, beth
had seen elizabeth less than a dozen times. Prior to beth’s
visits resulting from the present guardianship case, which are
discussed below, it had been approximately 14 months since
beth had had any contact with elizabeth. beth acknowledged
that the only contact, including telephone calls, she had had
with elizabeth in the year prior to the hearing was the easter
2007 visit. Susan testified that over the years, beth did make
a couple of calls, had once asked to take elizabeth to a zoo,
and had taken her to see the movie “Cars.” Susan recalled that
beth would give only about an hour’s notice of her request to
see elizabeth, while beth said that she usually tried to give
notice the day before she wanted to visit. beth admitted that
she should have called elizabeth more often.
beth did not contribute financially to elizabeth’s upbringing.
Although she was ordered to pay child support for elizabeth
on February 14, 2008, beth did not make any child support
payments until a couple of weeks prior to the June 30 hear-
ing. Susan testified that she and Thomas carry health insurance
on elizabeth, pay for her school tuition, and receive $222 per
month in “ADC” for elizabeth.
beth did not know who elizabeth’s first grade teacher was
and admitted that she did not attend parent-teacher confer-
ences for elizabeth during the previous year and did not make
an effort to find out when they were held. beth stated that she
758 	17 NebRASkA APPellATe RePORTS

did not send any gifts for elizabeth to Thomas and Susan’s
house and acknowledged that the only gift she had given
elizabeth in the previous year was a stuffed animal for easter
in 2007.
beth stated that she did not simply take elizabeth from
Thomas and Susan, her parents, because she did not want to
scare elizabeth. She also stated that she had a tense relation-
ship with her parents and was uncomfortable confronting
them regarding visitation and taking elizabeth back. beth
stated that “every time I did try to get [into] contact with
them over the years, it just seem[ed] like there [were] all
kinds of excuses. . . . I don’t have a relationship with them,
so it’s hard for me to go and be with them just to see my
daughter.” beth acknowledged that Thomas and Susan had
taken good care of elizabeth but stated that she opposed the
guardianship because she was capable of taking care of her.
She also acknowledged that elizabeth had a stronger bond
with beth’s parents because beth had not spent as much time
with elizabeth. When asked why she wanted her daughter
back now, beth stated, “I just kind of think every child should
be with their mother. I have friends that work in places like
boys Town and — with kids like that, and I just heard some
real nasty stories, and I — I don’t want my kids to turn out
like that.”
A family support worker and visitation specialist testified
on beth’s behalf. The worker supervised the six 2-hour vis-
its between elizabeth and beth from June 11 to 27, 2008,
just prior to the hearing. She testified that the visits occurred
at a zoo, a park, beth’s home, a skating rink, a restaurant,
and a children’s museum. The worker was not concerned for
elizabeth’s safety during the visits that she observed. She testi-
fied that elizabeth and beth appeared to have a regular mother-
daughter relationship and that she observed normal interaction
between elizabeth and her half siblings.
beth’s family friend testified that she and beth had been
friends for approximately 3 years and that she had observed
beth and Mike with beth’s sons, but not with elizabeth. She
stated that she spent time with the family about one or two
times per week and that they were a typical family. She testified
IN Re GUARDIANSHIP OF elIzAbeTH H. 	759
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 752

that they had steady meals, a clean home, clean clothes, and a
roof over their heads and that the children had consistent bed-
times. She stated that beth told her that she intended to bring
elizabeth back into her life and into her home.
Following the testimony at the hearing, the county judge
ruled from the bench, finding that beth was unfit, and awarded
permanent guardianship to Thomas and Susan. On July 1,
2008, the county court entered a written order finding that beth
was unfit to have the care, custody, and control of elizabeth;
granted Thomas and Susan’s amended petition for guardian-
ship; and ordered letters of guardianship to be issued. beth
now appeals.
ASSIGNMeNT OF eRROR
beth asserts, restated, that the county court erred when it
appointed Thomas and Susan as coguardians of elizabeth over
her objection because there was not competent, clear, and con-
vincing evidence that beth was unfit or that she had forfeited
her rights.
STANDARD OF ReVIeW
[1-3] 	Appeals 	of 	matters 	arising 	under 	the 	Nebraska
Probate Code are reviewed for error on the record. See, In re
Guardianship of D.J., 268 Neb. 239, 682 N.W.2d 238 (2004);
Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 30-2201 through 30-2902 (Reissue 2008).
When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record,
the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is sup-
ported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capri-
cious, nor unreasonable. In re Guardianship of D.J., supra. An
appellate court, in reviewing a judgment for errors appearing
on the record, will not substitute its factual findings for those
of the lower court where competent evidence supports those
findings. In re Guardianship of Cameron D., 14 Neb. App. 276,
706 N.W.2d 586 (2005).
[4] On questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation
to reach its own conclusions independent of those reached by
the lower courts. In re Guardianship of Lavone M., 9 Neb. App.
245, 610 N.W.2d 29 (2000).
760 	17 NebRASkA APPellATe RePORTS

ANAlYSIS
beth asserts that the county court erred when it appointed
Thomas and Susan as coguardians of elizabeth over beth’s
objection because there was not competent, clear, and convinc-
ing evidence that beth was unfit or that she had forfeited her
rights to elizabeth.
Section 30-2608 provides, in relevant part:
(a) The father and mother are the natural guardians of
their minor children and are duly entitled to their custody
. . . being themselves . . . not otherwise unsuitable. . . .
. . . .
(d) The court may 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.
Further, § 30-2611(b) provides in part:
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.
[5-8] A guardianship is no more than a temporary custody
arrangement established for the well-being of a child. In re
Guardianship of D.J., 268 Neb. 239, 682 N.W.2d 238 (2004).
The appointment of a guardian is not a de facto termination of
parental rights, which results in a final and complete severance
of the child from the parent and removes the entire bundle of
parental rights. Rather, guardianships give parents an opportu-
nity to temporarily relieve themselves of the burdens involved
in raising a child, thereby enabling parents to take those steps
necessary to better their situation so they can resume custody
of their child in the future. Id. Granting one legal custody of
a child confers neither parenthood nor adoption; a guardian is
subject to removal at any time. In re Guardianship of Zyla, 251
Neb. 163, 555 N.W.2d 768 (1996). In that sense, guardianships
are temporary and depend upon the circumstances existing at
the time. Id.
IN Re GUARDIANSHIP OF elIzAbeTH H. 	761
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 752

[9-12] 	The 	Nebraska 	Supreme 	Court 	held 	in 	In 	re
Guardianship of D.J., supra, that the parental preference prin-
ciple applies in guardianship proceedings that affect child
custody. The parental preference principle establishes a rebut-
table presumption that the best interests of a child are served
by reuniting the child with his or her parent. Id. The principle
provides that a parent has a natural right to the custody of
his or her child which trumps the interest of strangers to the
parent-child relationship and the preferences of the child. Id.
An individual who opposes the termination of a guardianship
bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence
that the biological or adoptive parent either is unfit or has for-
feited his or her right to custody. Absent such proof, the con-
stitutional dimensions of the relationship between parent and
child require termination of the guardianship and reunification
with the parent. Id.
[13-16] Our research reveals no Nebraska case law involv-
ing the application of the parental preference principle to the
initial appointment of a guardian as opposed to a guardian-
ship termination proceeding. However, it is axiomatic that the
parental preference principle must also be applied to initially
determine whether to appoint a guardian over a parent’s objec-
tion. It follows that an individual who seeks appointment as a
guardian over the objection of a biological or adoptive parent
bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence
that the biological or adoptive parent is unfit or has forfeited
his or her right to custody. Absent such proof, the constitu-
tional dimensions of the relationship between parent and child
require a court to deny the request for a guardianship. Parental
unfitness means a personal deficiency or incapacity which has
prevented, or will probably prevent, performance of a reason-
able parental obligation in child rearing and which has caused,
or probably will result in, detriment to a child’s well-being.
In re Guardianship of Cameron D., 14 Neb. App. 276, 706
N.W.2d 586 (2005). The “fitness” standard applied in guardian-
ship appointment under § 30-2608 is analogous to a juvenile
court finding that it would be contrary to a juvenile’s welfare to
return home. See In re Guardianship of Rebecca B. et al., 260
Neb. 922, 621 N.W.2d 289 (2000).
762 	17 NebRASkA APPellATe RePORTS

[17] We now apply the law to the facts of the present case
to determine whether Thomas and Susan have proved by clear
and convincing evidence that beth is unfit or has forfeited her
right to custody of elizabeth. The county court found only
that beth was unfit and did not determine whether she had
forfeited her right to custody of elizabeth, and as such, we
limit our review to the issue of whether beth is unfit to retain
custody of elizabeth. An appellate court will not consider an
issue on appeal that was not presented to or passed upon by
the trial court. In re Interest of Ty M. & Devon M., 265 Neb.
150, 655 N.W.2d 672 (2003). We review for error on the record
the county court’s decision to appoint Thomas and Susan as
elizabeth’s coguardians. That is, we consider whether the
court’s decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent
evidence, and is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. We
do not substitute our factual findings for those of the county
court where competent evidence supports those findings.
At the trial, the county court judge stated that the main
issue in this case was whether beth was a fit person to have
the custody of her daughter, elizabeth. The court then made
oral factual findings before announcing its determination that
beth was unfit. The court noted that beth had shown she was
deficient at making proper choices in her life and that those
choices had a negative effect on elizabeth’s well-being. The
court stated:
Now a part of being a fit parent is making proper
choices, or at leas[t] not making bad ones. . . . Having
children you can’t take care of financially or emotionally
is not a proper choice. When you do this continually, it
indicates that you are not a person who can make proper
choices. Choosing mates who are going to be responsible
for the care and custody of these children, along with
you as their parent, is also something that is indicative of
whether or not you make proper choices. . . . Choosing
somebody who assaults you repeatedly [or] somebody
who’s put in jail for attempted murder is not making
proper choices. . . .
Now, this doesn’t seem to bother you at all, but it cer-
tainly bothers me. You have absolutely had no stability
IN Re GUARDIANSHIP OF elIzAbeTH H. 	763
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 752

in your relationships with the men. In fact, you’ve also
indicated the men that you have had sex with and had
children with, some of [them] you don’t even hardly
know. . . . You have no . . . connection with these people.
You just go have babies. Those are not proper choices.
You are unemployed. . . . Your newest boyfriend [was]
just recently convicted of assaulting your ex-husband [and
that] doesn’t indicate a very good choice. If you leave
your current boyfriend, you have no visible means of sup-
port. . . . These are not proper choices for somebody who
wants to be a fit parent to a child.
Now, there’s more than ample evidence that you have
had minimal, and I mean minimal, contact with this little
girl for the last four years. Now that’s a lot of time. .
. . [W]hen events [occur] so occasionally that you can
remember them vividly, like taking her to the movie
Cars[,] [t]hey happen so sporadically that they can’t be
termed as anything but momentous because they very sel-
dom ever happen. Those are things you shouldn’t be able
to remember at all because you do them so often they just
blur together. but now these are the things that I’m sup-
posed to take and find that you are a fit parent.
[F]rom the evidence, I believe the outcome is absolutely
clear. by your own actions or the lack thereof, it is clear
to me that you were and still are unfit to have custody of
elizabeth. . . . It’s clear that you were not able to care for
elizabeth financially or emotionally many years ago. And
you made the choice to have more children that you can’t
financial[ly] take care [of]; with three other men, all out
of wedlock. . . . I think you are unfit to have the custody
of the child and if you ever wish to have custody of her,
you’re going to have to do a[n] awful lot of changing as
far as I’m concerned.
because the court ultimately appointed Thomas and Susan as
elizabeth’s permanent coguardians, it implicitly determined
that the requirements of § 30-2611(b) had been met, including
that elizabeth’s welfare and best interests would be served by
granting the requested appointment.
764 	17 NebRASkA APPellATe RePORTS

The record before us provides competent evidence to support
the court’s determination that beth was unfit to retain custody
of elizabeth at the time of the hearing. beth has shown a pattern
of poor decisionmaking which has been and probably would be
detrimental to elizabeth’s well-being if elizabeth were to live
with beth at this time. beth has made many choices that have
adversely affected her relationship with elizabeth. beth has
had very minimal contact with elizabeth in the 4 years that
elizabeth has lived with Thomas and Susan. beth admitted
that she should have called more often and that she did not
see elizabeth for extended periods of time. The only explana-
tion that beth has given for her absence from elizabeth’s life
is that it was difficult for her to be around her parents “just to
see [her] daughter.” beth’s decision to forgo a relationship with
elizabeth so that she could avoid her parents is an example
of beth’s unwillingness to put her parental responsibilities
before her own interests, and it also indicates an indifference
toward her child’s welfare over a long period of time, which is
undoubtedly a detriment to elizabeth’s well-being.
beth’s history over the last 4 years has certainly shown a
lack of stability and maturity. beth’s present situation is that
she is unemployed and lives in a three-bedroom home with
her boyfriend, his two children and grandson, and beth’s three
sons. It is unclear how elizabeth would fit into this scenario.
The evidence shows that elizabeth is confused over beth’s
present family situation. We are mindful that we are not to con-
sider that Thomas and Susan may provide a more economically
advantageous home situation to elizabeth. See In re Interest of
Amber G. et al., 250 Neb. 973, 554 N.W.2d 142 (1996). We
also note that there is no evidence to suggest that beth has not
been a fit parent to her three younger sons.
We conclude that at the time of the hearing, the evidence
clearly and convincingly supported a finding that placing
elizabeth with beth would result in detriment to elizabeth and
would be contrary to her welfare. This conclusion is primarily
supported by the fact that beth has not had a parental relation-
ship with elizabeth until shortly before the hearing. However,
recognizing the temporary nature of guardianships, this is not
IN Re GUARDIANSHIP OF elIzAbeTH H. 	765
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 752

to say that beth could not place herself in a position in the
future to regain custody of elizabeth after a satisfactory period
of regular visitation and establishment of a parental relation-
ship, together with a showing of stability in beth’s life.
We find that the county court’s decision conforms to the law,
is supported by competent evidence, and is not arbitrary, capri-
cious, or unreasonable. As such, we find that the county court
did not err when it found that beth was unfit and granted the
amended petition for guardianship.
CONClUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, we find that the county
court did not err when it granted the amended petition for
guardianship, and accordingly, we affirm.
affirMed.
766 	17 NebRASkA APPellATe RePORTS