Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The juvenile court found Tavian B. to be a child who lacks proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of his parents and to be in a situation dangerous to life or limb or injurious to his health or morals. The State subsequently filed a motion to terminate the parental rights of both parents. Father filed a motion to transfer jurisdiction to the Oglala Sioux Tribal Juvenile Court pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Before the juvenile court ruled on Father’s motion to transfer, the State withdrew its motion to terminate parental rights. Thereafter, the juvenile court concluded that good cause existed to overrule Father’s motion to transfer jurisdiction to the tribal court because the proceedings were in “an advanced stage.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State did not meet its burden of establishing good cause to deny transfer to tribal court, and therefore, the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to transfer. View "In re Interest of Tavian B." on Justia Law

Anne and Adam have been married since 1995. From 2003 to 2004, Anne and Bryan engaged in an extramarital affair, during which time Anne had regular sexual intercourse with both Bryan and Adam. In 2004, Anne became pregnant and gave birth to T.B. Adam has raised T.B. with the belief that he is T.B.’s father. In 2012, Bryan requested a DNA test, which revealed a 99.9 percent chance that Bryan is T.B.’s biological father. In 2013, Bryan filed a complaint seeking to establish paternity of T.B. and custody, claiming (1) the four-year statute of limitations provided in Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-411 should be tolled based on misrepresentations of Anne that he was not the father, (2) he should be entitled to bring the action as the next friend of T.B., and (3) section 43-1411 is unconstitutional. The district court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Bryan cannot bring this action as the next friend of T.B. under section 43-1411; (2) under the circumstances, Bryan has shown no basis to toll the statute of limitations; and (3) section 43-1411 is constitutional. View "Bryan M. v. Anne B." on Justia Law

After being married for approximately twenty years, Shelley and Kirk Brozek divorced. The divorce decree divided the marital estate and ordered Kirk to buy some of Shelley’s separate property. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decree and the court’s order awarding Shelley attorney fees, holding that the district court did not err in (1) ordering Kirk to buy Shelley’s shares in a closely held farming corporation for a price higher than the value determined under a stock redemption agreement; (2) dividing the marital estate and declining to give Kirk credit for premarital property he disposed of during the marriage; (3) awarding Shelley attorney fees after Kirk filed a notice of appeal; and (4) not awarding Shelley alimony, a cash award for the inadequacy of the marital estate, or attorney fees in the decree. View "Brozek v. Brozek" on Justia Law

After Eric Zornes won a lottery, Eric and his wife, Julia, commenced a gifting plan to Andy Wolfe, Jason Wolfe, and Jason Reed. These gifts were structured as loans, and each borrower made a promissory note for his loan, payable to Julia’s and Eric’s revocable trusts jointly. Andy’s note was secured by a deed of trust for real property. Julia and Eric later divorced pursuant to a settlement agreement. When Eric found that Andy’s house had been sold and that Julia had retained the proceeds of the sale, Eric filed this complaint alleging that Julia had converted the proceeds of Andy’s note. Julia counterclaimed for partition of the Jason Wolfe and Jason Reed notes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Julia, concluding that even if Julia had converted the proceeds, the settlement agreement operated as an accord and satisfaction. The court also ordered partition of the promissory notes for Jason Wolfe’s and Jason Reed’s loans. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Eric was not entitled to summary judgment on his conversion claim; (2) the settlement agreement did not constitute an accord and satisfaction; and (3) the lower court erred in the method by which it partitioned the Jason Wolfe and Jason Reed notes. View "Zornes v. Zornes" on Justia Law

Damian and Tiffany, who were never married, had a child together, Jakai, born in 2009. In 2011, the district court filed a decree awarding joint legal custody to the parties and awarded primary physical custody to Tiffany. The decree also incorporated a previous order requiring Damian to pay child support. Damian subsequently filed a complaint to modify the decree, requesting that he be granted sole legal and physical custody and seeking an order requiring Tiffany to pay child support. Tiffany filed a cross-complaint seeking an increase in Damian’s child support obligation. After a modification hearing, the district court denied a change of custody and increased Damian’s child support obligation. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that a modification of custody was not warranted and adjusted child support. View "State ex rel. Jakai C. v. Tiffany M." on Justia Law

The juvenile court determined that it had jurisdiction over Child, an infant, because of the faults and habits of Mother. The court gave the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services temporary custody of Child. The Department subsequently placed Child with Foster Parents. Foster Parents filed a complaint to intervene to object to any placement change. Mother subsequently moved to place Child with Aunt, who did not live in Nebraska. The court dismissed Foster Parents’ complaint to intervene and approved Aunt for placement. Foster Parents appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Foster Parents lacked standing to appeal the order changing Child’s placement; and (2) Foster Parents were not entitled to intervene as of right, and the juvenile court lacked the power to allow them to equitably intervene. View "In re Interest of Enyce J." on Justia Law

Mother was the biological mother of three minor children. The State, alleging that Mother had substantially and repeatedly neglected and refused to give necessary parental care and protection to the children, filed an amended petition alleging that the children came within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292(2) and that Mother’s parental rights should be terminated. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children were within the meaning of section 43-292(2) and that it was in their best interests to terminate Mother’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) clear and convincing evidence established that Mother substantially and repeatedly neglected to provide the children necessary parental care and protection; and (2) clear and convincing evidence established that Mother’s parental rights be terminated. View "In re Interest of Joseph S." on Justia Law