Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court by the acquiescence or consent of the parties, nor may it be created by waiver, estoppel, or conduct of the parties. Scherbak, supra. In In re Interest of Constance G., ante p. 1, 520 N.W.2d 784 (1994), an adjudication was made against the mother, but not the father. A panel of this court said:

Ruling that the county court had not acquired jurisdiction over the infant because there was insufficient evidence with regard to the father, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. In re Interest of Constance G., 3 Neb. App. 1, 520 N.W.2d 784 (1994). Claiming that the Court of Appeals was wrong in its jurisdictional ruling, the guardian ad litem for the infant petitioned this court for further review.

In re Interest of T.M.B. et al., 241 Neb. 828, 491 N.W.2d 58 (1992). If the pleadings and evidence at an adjudication hearing do not justify a juvenile court's acquiring jurisdiction of a child, the juvenile court has no jurisdiction to order a parent to comply with the rehabilitation plan; nor does it have any power over the parent or child at the disposition hearing unless jurisdiction is alleged and proved by new facts at a new adjudication-disposition hearing. In re Interest of Constance G., 3 Neb. App. 1, 520 N.W.2d 784 (1994), rev'd 247 Neb. 629, 529 N.W.2d 534 (1995). As stated above, the record reflects that the family lived in Gering, Nebraska, at the time the petitions were filed but, with the exception of Jennifer, had moved to LaGrange, Wyoming, approximately 2 months prior to the adjudication hearing.

In that case, the mother admitted the allegations under § 43-247(3)(a), and the father pled no contest, to the effect that the child was homeless and destitute, or without proper support through no fault of his or her parents, guardian, or custodian. In In re Interest of Constance G., 3 Neb. App. 1, 520 N.W.2d 784 (1994), this court had held the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction because there was insufficient evidence with regard to the father. In In re Interest of Constance G., supra, the Supreme Court reviewed the authorities and concluded the rule is: "In a dependency action, the only inquiry is whether a child is in need of care which for any reason is not being provided."