Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533 (2026)

Family policy; guiding principles

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The following principles shall guide the actions of state government and departments, agencies, institutions, committees, courts, and commissions which become involved with families and children in need of assistance or services:

(1) Prevention, early identification of problems, and early intervention shall be guiding philosophies when the state or a department, agency, institution, committee, court, or commission plans or implements services for families or children when such services are in the best interests of the child;

(2) When families or children request assistance, state and local government resources shall be utilized to complement community efforts to help meet the needs of such families or the needs and the safety and best interests of such children. The state shall encourage community involvement in the provision of services to families and children, including as an integral part, local government and public and private group participation, in order to encourage and provide innovative strategies in the development of services for families and children;

(3) To maximize resources the state shall develop methods to coordinate services and resources for families and children. Every child-serving department, agency, institution, committee, court, or commission shall recognize that the jurisdiction of such department, agency, institution, committee, court, or commission in serving multiple-need children is not mutually exclusive;

(4) When children are removed from their home, permanency planning shall be the guiding philosophy. It shall be the policy of the state (a) to make reasonable efforts to reunite the child with his or her family in a timeframe appropriate to the age and developmental needs of the child so long as the best interests of the child, the health and safety of the child being of paramount concern, and the needs of the child have been given primary consideration in making a determination whether or not reunification is possible, (b) when a child cannot remain with parents, to give preference to relatives as a placement resource, and (c) to minimize the number of placement changes for children in out-of-home care so long as the needs, health, safety, and best interests of the child in care are considered; and

(5) When families cannot be reunited and when active parental involvement is absent, adoption shall be aggressively pursued. Absent the possibility of adoption other permanent settings shall be pursued. In either situation, the health, safety, and best interests of the child shall be the overriding concern. Within that context, preference shall be given to relatives for the permanent placement of the child.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2009–2023 · leading case: In re Adoption of Faith F., 984 N.W.2d 640 (Neb. 2023).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Adoption of Faith F., 984 N.W.2d 640 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 14× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533 (5) (Reissue 2016) does not set forth a legal presumption controlling a best interests analy- sis, nor does it limit the factors a trial court may consider in deciding whether granting a petition for adoption is in the child’s best interests.”

In Re Interest of Spencer O., 765 N.W.2d 443 (Neb. 2009). · cites it 3× “Thus, although § 43-1312(3) lists as an option the termination of parental rights, that was not a possibility in the State's delinquency case against Spencer.”

State v. Tina E. (In re Interest Joseph C.), 910 N.W.2d 773 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 3× “**856 Finally, Tina points out that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533 (4) (Reissue 2016) provides, "[W]hen a child cannot remain with parents, [it shall be the policy of the State] to give preference to relatives as a placement resource.”

In re Interest of Mateo L., 309 Neb. 565 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 43-533 (4) (Reissue 2016). - 572 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports IN RE INTEREST OF MATEO L.”

In re Interest of Joseph C., 299 Neb. 848 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 3× “” She asserts that she has a personal stake in the outcome of Joseph’s case as a conse- quence of this preference, coupled with the affirmative steps she and Rodney have taken toward eventual adoption. Tina’s argument hearkens back to In re Interest of Meridian H.”

In re Interest of Mateo L., 309 Neb. 565 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 43-533 (4) (Reissue 2016). - 572 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports IN RE INTEREST OF MATEO L.”

In re Interest of Julia D. (Neb. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “2014); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533 (Reissue 2008); Neb.”

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533(4) — 1 case

In Re Interest of Spencer O., 765 N.W.2d 443 (Neb. 2009). “Thus, although § 43-1312(3) lists as an option the termination of parental rights, that was not a possibility in the State's delinquency case against Spencer.”

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533(5) — 1 case

In re Adoption of Faith F., 984 N.W.2d 640 (Neb. 2023). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-533 (5) (Reissue 2016) does not set forth a legal presumption controlling a best interests analy- sis, nor does it limit the factors a trial court may consider in deciding whether granting a petition for adoption is in the child’s best interests.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.