Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2009, Bonnie Nichols and Margie Nichols were married in Iowa. In 2012, Bonnie filed a complaint in a Nebraska court to dissolve the union. Margie filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that a Nebraska court lacked jurisdiction to dissolve a same-sex marriage. The district court granted Margie’s motion to dismiss for subject matter jurisdiction. The district court’s order purported to dismiss Bonnie’s complaint if Bonnie failed to amend it within fifteen days. Bonnie did not file an amended complaint, and the district court did not enter a judgment dismissing the action. Bonnie appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Bonnie appealed from a conditional order and not a final judgment, and therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.View "Nichols v. Nichols" on Justia Law

After mother remarried, she petitioned for the termination of Father’s parental rights to the parties’ minor child. The county court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights, concluding that termination was in the child’s best interests and that one of more of the grounds in Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292 existed in support of termination. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err by (1) not addressing the county court’s failure to appoint a guardian ad litem for Father; and (2) finding the evidence sufficient to terminate Father’s parental rights under section 43-292.View "Wayne G. v. Jacqueline W." on Justia Law

Mother and Father were the biological parents of Son and had joint legal custody of Son. Since his birth, Son lived primarily with Mother. In 2001, Mother married Stepfather. In 2013, Father filed a complaint to modify, seeking sole custody of Son. In his complaint, Father alleged there had been a material change in circumstance because Stepfather had been deported to Mexico and Mother wished to join him in Mexico with Son. Mother filed a countercomplaint seeking to permanently remove Son to Mexico. The district court granted summary judgment for Father on Mother’s countercomplaint, finding that Mother’s reason for removal was not legitimate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in determining that Mother’s desire to live with Stepfather in Mexico was not a legitimate reason for removal as a matter of law. Remanded.View "Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin" on Justia Law

Mother and Father had a son while they were married. Mother filed for divorce, and a decree and parenting plan awarded sole primary and legal custody to Mother. Father was awarded visitation and ordered to pay $500 per month in child support. Father later filed a second amended application for modification, alleging a material change in circumstances for various reasons, including his unemployment and his relocation to Kansas. Following a trial, the district court found a material change in circumstances, made changes to the parties’ parenting time, and reduced Father’s child support obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) its order regarding visitation transportation; (2) reducing and in calculating Father’s child support obligation; and (3) awarding Mother attorney fees.View "Garza v. Garza" on Justia Law

After B.M. was born in 1994, Brian F. signed an acknowledgement of paternity stating that he was the biological father of B.M. In 1996, a decree of paternity established Brian F. as the legal father of the child and ordered him to pay child support. More than a dozen years later, Brian sought to reduce or terminate his child support obligation. During the course of the modification proceedings, genetic testing results revealed that Brian was not B.M.’s biological father. Based on the results of the genetic testing, the district court converted the action to modify child support to a disestablishment action and terminated Brian’s child support obligation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in treating this modification of child support proceeding as a successful challenge to the acknowledgment, setting aside the finding of paternity, and terminating Brian’s child support obligation. Remanded.View "State ex rel. B.M. v. Brian F." on Justia Law

Husband filed a complaint seeking a divorce from Wife. Before trial, the parties negotiated a settlement, and Wife’s attorney drafted a decree. Wife, however, refused to sign the decree, and Husband filed a motion to compel. At a hearing on the motion to compel, the district court signed and entered a copy of the drafted decree, which had not been signed by either party. Wife subsequently filed a motion to vacate. The district court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Wife’s amended motion to vacate the judgment, as (1) although the decree was not signed by Wife, it was drafted by Wife’s attorney, and, at the motion to compel hearing, Wife presented no evidence that she had changed her mind about or disagreed with the settlement; and (2) Wife’s remaining assignment of error was waived. View "Kibler v. Kibler" on Justia Law

In 2011, the district court filed a decree dissolving the marriage of Brenda Rice and Dale Rice that incorporated a property settlement agreement (“agreement”) previously entered into by the parties. Dale died one week later. At the time of his death, Dale owned two life insurance policies, both of which listed Brenda as the primary beneficiary. Brenda subsequently filed claims for the proceeds of the policies. The personal representative of Dale’s estate moved to enforce the dissolution decree, claiming that under the agreement, Brenda relinquished her beneficiary interests in the life insurance policies. The district court ordered Brenda to withdraw her claims under the policies and to renounce her rights to any property or interest in Dale’s estate and proceeds from any insurance policies on Dale’s life. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) as a matter of law, Brenda relinquished all rights to Dale’s life insurance policies in the agreement, which was incorporated into the divorce decree; and (2) therefore, the district court did not err when it enforced the dissolution decree and ordered Brenda to withdraw claims to Dale’s life insurance policies.View "Rice v. Web" on Justia Law

Nicole and Sandra were removed from their family home in 2011 due to its unsanitary condition. The children were later adjudicated and moved to a foster placement. The Department of Health and Human Services’ case plans focused on the unsanitary home condition, as well as Mother and Father’s parenting skills and abuse allegations. In 2013, after a trial, the county court entered an order terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the county court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights, as the State rebutted the presumption that Mother was a fit parent and that it was in the children’s best interests for Mother’s rights to remain intact; but (2) reversed the order terminating Father’s parental rights, as the State did not rebut the presumption that Father was a fit parent.View "In re Interest of Nicole M." on Justia Law

The State petitioned to remove Mother’s two daughters, age fourteen and age eleven, from Mother’s home and to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the girls. The juvenile court found that the children came within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 435-292(1) (abandonment) and (9) (aggravated circumstances) insofar as Mother was concerned, but the court also found that termination of Mother’s parental rights to the two girls was not in the girls’ best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not commit plain error in finding that there was not clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. View "In re Interest of Justine J." on Justia Law

The State filed an amended petition seeking termination of Mother’s parental rights to her three minor children, alleging the children were within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292(2) because Mother had substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected and refused to give necessary parental care and protection. The juvenile court ordered the children to remain in the temporary custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, finding that the State had failed to present a prima facie case that termination of Mother’s parental rights was appropriate under section 43-292(2). The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Mother’s noncompliance with voluntary State-offered services was not acceptable evidence to be used to satisfy the requirements of section 43-292(2). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State made at least a prima facie case that the requirements of section 43-292(2) were met due to Mother’s history of drug use and improper supervision. Remanded. View "In re Interest of Joseph S." on Justia Law