Bryan M. v. Anne B.
292 Neb. 725
| Neb. | 2016Background
- In 2013 Bryan M. sued to establish paternity and obtain custody of T.B., a child born in 2004; Bryan alleged DNA showed he was the biological father (99.9% probability).
- Bryan filed both in his individual capacity and "as next friend" of T.B.; the suit was filed about 9 years after conception and 8 years after birth.
- Nebraska statute § 43-1411 bars paternity suits brought by a parent after 4 years from birth, but permits guardians/next friends or the state to bring such actions within 18 years.
- Bryan argued the 4-year limit should be tolled by fraud/equitable estoppel because the mother repeatedly told him he was not the father, and he also argued he could proceed as T.B.’s next friend.
- The district court: struck the next-friend claim (T.B. had guardians), rejected equitable estoppel/fraud tolling for lack of reasonable reliance/ diligence, and upheld § 43-1411 as constitutional under due process and equal protection.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court on all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bryan) | Defendant's Argument (Anne/Adam) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Bryan sue as T.B.'s "next friend" to invoke the 18-year limitation? | Bryan: statute allows next friend to bring suit on child’s behalf so he may proceed as next friend. | Anne/Adam: T.B. has legal guardians (mother and presumed father), so Bryan lacks the relationship/authority to be next friend. | Held: No—Bryan cannot proceed as next friend because T.B. was not without a guardian and Bryan lacked a significant relationship. |
| Should the 4-year limitations period be tolled by equitable estoppel/fraud? | Bryan: mother repeatedly told him he was not the father, so her misrepresentations estop invocation of the statute. | Anne: Bryan knew of unprotected intercourse and the possibility of paternity; he failed to exercise reasonable diligence and could not justifiably rely. | Held: No—Bryan’s reliance was not reasonable or justifiable; constructive knowledge/DNA testing availability bars equitable estoppel/fraud tolling. |
| Does § 43-1411 violate Equal Protection (gender or legitimacy discrimination)? | Bryan: statute disadvantages biological fathers and children born out of wedlock by giving parents only 4 years while guardians/next friends have 18 years. | State: statute treats parents identically; distinction is between parental claims and child’s claims; state interest in family stability justifies limits. | Held: No—statute survives equal protection scrutiny; Bryan also lacked standing to raise the child-born-out-of-wedlock claim on behalf of T.B. |
| Does § 43-1411 violate Due Process? | Bryan: societal changes make the limitation arbitrary; he claims procedural/substantive due process violations. | State: limitation provides reasonable opportunity to sue and serves important interests (stability, protection from stale claims); statute is less rigid than upheld statutes. | Held: No—statute does not violate due process; provides adequate notice/opportunity and furthers legitimate state interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doak v. Milbauer, 216 Neb. 331 (1984) (distinguishes parent’s barred claim from child’s claim brought by guardian/next friend under predecessor statute)
- Jeffrey B. v. Amy L., 283 Neb. 940 (2012) (biological father denied equitable relief for sleeping on rights where putative father had developed parental relationship)
- Manker v. Manker, 263 Neb. 944 (2002) (equitable estoppel applied where a spouse concealed a judicial dissolution and repeatedly represented ongoing marriage)
- Zoucha v. Henn, 258 Neb. 611 (2000) (next-friend suit not permitted where child lives with natural parent/guardian)
- Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) (U.S. Supreme Court upholds marital paternity presumption and allows categorical preference for husband in certain contexts)