Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2014, Elizabeth Stanosheck filed for divorce from Joseph Jeanette. After a trial in 2015, the district court entered judgment diving the marital estate. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in valuing the marital estate at the time of trial rather than the date the divorce was filed; (2) did not abuse its discretion in dividing the remaining proceeds from the sale of the marital home equally, rather than awarding the entire sum to Joseph; but (3) erred in classifying, valuing, and dividing the parties’ retirement accounts. Remanded. View "Stanosheck v. Jeanette" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in 2002. The parties share legal custody of their two minor children, and Mother has physical custody. Pursuant to a 2011 parenting plan, Father was to have rights of visitation. In 2015, Father filed a motion for an order for Mother to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for her alleged failure to allow Father to exercise parenting time on certain days. After a hearing, the district court found Mother in contempt of court for willful failure to comply with the district court’s order with regard to parenting time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not commit clear error in its factual findings; (2) did not abuse its discretion in finding Mother in contempt and in imposing a sixty-day jail sentence; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in modifying the parenting plan within the contempt proceeding to require the parties to obtain written consent of the guardian ad litem before changing the parenting schedule. View "Martin v. Martin" on Justia Law

Jesse, the legal father of Jaelyn under Ohio statutes, challenged the adoption of Jaelyn in Nebraska. In this appeal, Jesse specifically challenged the constitutionality of several Nebraska statutes, including statutes that permitted Jaelyn to be adopted without his consent. Jesse also argued that Nebraska must give full faith and credit to Ohio’s paternity determination. Under Ohio law, Jesse had the right to withhold consent to the adoption of Jaelyn. After the county court issued an adoption decree, the district court declined to grant habeas relief, determining that Jesse lost standing to challenge the adoption after the county court found that Jesse was not Jaelyn’s biological father. The Supreme Court reversed without addressing Jesse’s constitutional challenges, holding that the district court erred in failing to determine that Nebraska must give full faith and credit to Ohio’s determination of Jesse’s paternity. Remanded. View "Jesse B. v. Tylee H." on Justia Law

Jesse, the legal father of Jaelyn under Ohio statutes, challenged the adoption of Jaelyn in Nebraska. Jesse attempted to intervene to challenge the county court’s authority to exercise jurisdiction of the adoption proceeding, arguing that Nebraska must give full faith and credit to Ohio’s determination of his paternity and that the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because he did not consent to Jaelyn’s adoption. The county court did not allow Jesse to intervene and issued an adoption decree, concluding that Nebraska’s adoption statutes did not require Jesse’s consent to the adoption because genetic testing showed that another man was Jaelyn’s father. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the county court erred in failing to give full faith and credit to Ohio’s determination of Jesse’s paternity; and (2) the county court erred in exercising jurisdiction over this adoption petition because Jesse did not consent to the adoption. Remanded with directions for the county court to vacate its decree. View "In re Adoption of Jaelyn B." on Justia Law

A 2004 dissolution decree awarded Kerry custody of the parties’ children, provided Michael with parenting time, and ordered Michael to pay child support. The parties settled a 2011 petition for an increase in support and counter-petition, but neither petition was dismissed. In 2013, the court granted Michael’s motion to compel compliance with the settlement. The Court of Appeals remanded with direction to prepare the applicable worksheets. Following remand, both appealed. In 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed in part. In 2013, while the first modification was ongoing, Michael sought changes of custody and child support. A summons issued, but a deputy was unable to serve Kerry. An appointed special process server later certified that personal service had been “effectuated,” but did not actually serve Kerry with a summons. Kerry objected to jurisdiction. The court found that Kerry received actual notice and had not been prejudiced by the manner of service. Kerry filed an answer. In 2014, the district court granted Michael’s application to modify the order. The Court of Appeals vacated, holding that Michael’s failure to serve the summons on Kerry within six months deprived the court of jurisdiction. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed. Kerry waived service of process by making a general appearance in the second proceeding and the court retained jurisdiction to modify custody while an appeal on other issues was pending. View "Burns v. Burns" on Justia Law

Nicole and Jeremy had three children, born in 2001, 2004, and 2005, and lived in Missouri. In 2007, Madysen, then 6 years old, reported that Jeremy had been sexually abusing her for more than a year. Jeremy was arrested. Nicole moved with the children to Nebraska and filed for divorce. The 2007 dissolution granted sole custody of the children to Nicole and stated that Jeremy “shall not have any parenting time.” The court ordered Jeremy to pay $50 per month in child support. IPursuant to a plea agreement, Jeremy was sentenced to 16 years’ confinement. Nicole married William in 2013; they sought adoption by a stepparent and to terminate Jeremy;s parental rights. Jeremy opposed the adoptions. The petitions asked the court to find that Jeremy had abandoned the children under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-104, such that Jeremy’s consent was not required. Jeremy’s mother had consistently paid the ordered child support; Jeremy had sent the children cards. The court ordered that Jeremy’s consent was not required. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the record did not support a finding upon clear and convincing evidence that Jeremy had abandoned his children. The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed an interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the Court of Appeals had also lacked jurisdiction. The order was not final, pending an order on the adoption petition. View "In re Adoption of Madysen S." on Justia Law

Madeline Schmitz and Steven Sickler were divorced in 2001. The property division awarded a percentage of Steven’s individual retirement account to Madeline. Madeline’s percentage had not been transferred to her in the fourteen years since the decree. The district court found Steven in contempt and ordered him to serve a sentence of ninety days’ incarceration. The sentence could be purged by payment of $37,234 to Madeline within a period of seventeen days. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) imprisonment for contempt for failing to comply with the order of property division in a dissolution decree does not violate Neb. Const. art. I, 20; (2) the district court did not err in finding Steven’s conduct to be willful; and (3) the order is modified so as to permit Steven to purge the contempt at any time during his period of incarceration. View "Sickler v. Sickler" on Justia Law

The juvenile court granted the Department of Health and Human Services temporary custody of Jackson after finding that he had suffered head injuries at home. Jackson was placed with his maternal grandmother, Erin, and her husband, Paul, where he remained in foster care for the next two and a half years. The Department later removed Jackson from his placement with Erin and Paul and placed him with other foster parents. Erin and Paul filed a motion for placement requesting an order that the Department place Jackson back with them and also filed a motion to intervene. The court granted Erin and Paul’s motion to intervene but denied their motion for placement, finding that the State had met its burden of proof that its placement plan was in the best interests of Jackson. Erin and Paul filed a motion for new trial or to alter or amend the court’s order. The motion was denied. Erin and Paul appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Erin and Paul had no right to take an appeal under the circumstances, and therefore, they had no standing. View "In re Interest of Jackson E." on Justia Law

The State filed a petition requesting that K.J. be adjudicated within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a). After a hearing, the court ordered care, custody, and control of K.J. to remain with the Department of Health and Human Services. The State later filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Charles to K.J., his son, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292. Following the termination hearing, the juvenile court denied the State’s petition to terminate Charles’ parental rights, finding that it should have appointed an attorney for Charles at the adjudication hearing. The State appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the juvenile court’s failure to provide Charles with counsel during the adjudication phase did not preclude consideration of termination of parental rights pursuant to section 43-292(1) through (3); and (2) there was clear and convincing evidence that Charles abandoned K.J. and that the termination of his parental rights was in K.J.’s best interests. View "In re Interest of Isabel P." on Justia Law

The district court dissolved the marriage of Kimberly and Michael, awarded Kimberly custody of the parties’ minor children, and ordered Michael to pay child support. After Michael became disabled, the State, as intervenor, filed a complaint to modify the child support order. A child support referee recommended that the court reduce Michael’s child support payments. The court entered an order purporting to approve the recommendations contingent on neither party’s filing exceptions during the next two weeks. Kimberly appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order from which Kimberly appealed was conditional and therefore not a final, appealable order. View "Stevens v. Stevens" on Justia Law