Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Orfa Torres applied for a domestic abuse protection order against her boyfriend, Benjamin Morales. The district court issued an order to show case. After a hearing, the district court vacated its order to show cause, dismissed the case, and required Torres to pay the costs of the action. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the order dismissing the cause, holding that the district court did not err in failing to issue the protection order because Torres did not provide some evidence of abuse as defined under Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-903(1); and (2) reversed the portion of the order requiring Torres to pay costs, holding that because the facts in Torres’s affidavit were not false and the order was not sought in bad faith, the district court erred in taxing costs to Torres. View "Torres v. Morales" on Justia Law

Mother and Father, who were not married, had a relationship during which Mother became pregnant. Mother sought to place the child up for adoption. Father attempted to prevent the adoption proceedings by filing an amended petition to establish the necessity of his consent to the adoption. The county court granted summary judgment for Mother, determining that Father did not comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-104.02 by objecting to the adoption within five business days of the child’s birth. The Supreme Court reversed. On remand, the county court held (1) Mother intentionally hid the child’s birth from Father and was therefore equitably estopped from relying on the five-day time limit for objections; and (2) Father’s consent to any proposed adoption of the child was required. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the county court did not err in finding (1) Mother failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Father neglected or abandoned the child; (2) Mother did not prove parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) Mother’s conduct excused Father’s failure to provide reasonable financial support for Mother and the child and reasonable financial support during Mother’s pregnancy. View "Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D." on Justia Law

In 2008, the district court entered a decree of dissolution of Father and Mother’s marriage and granted legal custody of Jakob, the parties’ child, to Father. In 2010, Father filed a complaint to modify the decree of dissolution and the parenting plan, seeking to be allowed to move from Nebraska to Texas for better career opportunities. After a bench trial, the district court denied Father’s request, finding that Father failed to meet his burden of showing that he had a legitimate reason to relocate and that the relocation was in the best interests of Jakob. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the district court plainly erred on the removal issue, as there was a legitimate reason for removal, and the removal was in Jakob’s best interests. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not plainly err in determining that Father failed to prove that moving to Texas was in Jakob’s best interests. Remanded. View "Steffy v. Steffy" on Justia Law

The juvenile court adjudicated Child under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) because of parental neglect. Because Mother was making poor progress toward the goal of reunification, the State moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Before the termination hearing began, Mother’s attorney asked the court for leave to withdraw. The juvenile court allowed the attorney to withdraw because Mother had not communicated with him. The court then terminated Mother’s parental rights to Child. Mother appealed, arguing that by allowing her attorney to withdraw before the termination hearing began, the juvenile court denied her due process. The Supreme Court vacated the court’s order, holding (1) a juvenile court may not permit an attorney to withdraw from representing a parent at a termination hearing for lack of communication unless the attorney shows that he or she has provided notice of an intent to withdraw or made diligent efforts to do so; and (2) the court’s procedures in this case denied Mother due process at the termination hearing. Remanded for a new termination hearing. View "In re Landon H." on Justia Law

Mother gave birth to Child in August 2012. Shortly after the birth, Mother and Appellant signed a sworn acknowledgment of paternity before a notary public naming Appellant as Child's biological father. At the time, both Mother and Appellant knew Appellant was not Child's biological father. In December 2012, the State initiated juvenile proceedings against Child's parents. Appellant was identified as Child's father in the State's petition alleging that Child was a child within Neb. Rev. Stat. 435-247(3)(a). Child's guardian ad litem (GAL) moved to exclude Appellant from the proceedings, challenging the acknowledgment of paternity signed by Appellant on the basis of fraud. After a hearing, the juvenile court found the GAL had met its burden to rebut the presumption of paternity arising from the notarized acknowledgment of paternity, granted the GAL's motion to exclude Appellant, and dismissed him from the proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not err in excluding Appellant from the juvenile proceedings because he was neither the legal nor the biological father of Child. View "In re Interest of Kodi L." on Justia Law

Mother's six children were adjudicated in a juvenile proceeding in which the juvenile court found the children at risk due to domestic violence and drug-use in the home. The children were placed in foster care, and the State sought termination of Mother's parental rights. Before the juvenile court ruled on the State's motion, the court ordered that the children remain the temporary custody of Department of Health and Human Services for placement, treatment, and care. The court also imposed specific conditions on Mother's visitation rights. Mother appealed this order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that because the order related to visitation and was temporary in nature, it was not a final, appealable order, and therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. View "In re Interest of Danaisha W." on Justia Law

Mother sought to modify the child custody and support provisions of a decree of dissolution, claiming there had been material changes in (1) Father's emotional, mental, and lifestyle circumstances, requiring a modification or suspension of his parenting time with the parties' minor child, and (2) Father's financial circumstances, necessitating a modification of child support. The district court ordered Father to obtain certain medical records from two health care providers located outside Nebraska for eventual production to Mother. Father appealed, challenging the district court's authority to issue the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no final, appealable order before the Court, and therefore the Court lacked appellate jurisdiction. View "Furstenfeld v. Pepin" on Justia Law

When Appellant was a minor ward, The Department of Health and Human Services adjudicated Appellant's two daughters under Neb. Rev. Stat. 435-247(3)(a) because of Appellant's neglect. As part of Appellant's reunification plan with her children, the juvenile court required Appellant to continue her high school education. The Department subsequently placed Appellant's children in a foster home, and Appellant aged out of the juvenile court system. The juvenile later changed Appellant's rehabilitation plan and required her to actively pursue a high school diploma or a GED diploma. Appellant appealed, arguing that the requirement to pursue a high school or GED diploma was not reasonably related to correcting the conditions that caused the adjudication. The court of appeals determined that this order was not appealable because it merely continued the court's previous orders. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the juvenile court's later order did not continue the terms of the previous rehabilitation plan but, instead, imposed a materially different requirement for Appellant's reunification plan with her children. Remanded. View "In re Interest of Mya C." on Justia Law

The State filed a petition alleging that Violet was a minor child who came within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) due to the faults and habits of her biological mother, Abigael. The State also filed a motion for a protective custody hearing. Abigael filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that although Violet was born in Nebraska, she had never actually lived in Nebraska. The juvenile court dismissed the petition, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Violet had lived in Iowa since her discharge from the hospital after she was born. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, holding that the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in this case. View "In re Interest of Violet T." on Justia Law

Father initiated a paternity action seeking an order declaring him to be the biological father of Child and awarding him visitation with Child. In her answer, Mother alleged that Father's paternity claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Mother also filed a counterclaim asking for a termination of Father's parental rights based on abandonment. The district court determined Father's paternity claim was not time-barred and entered an order terminating Father's parental rights. The supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court properly found grounds for abandonment; but (2) Mother did not meet her burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father's parental rights would be in the best interests of Child. Remanded. View "Kenneth C. v. Lacie H." on Justia Law