Chatterjee v. Chatterjee, 986 N.W.2d 283

Apurba filed a paternity action (and sought genetic testing) while Indraja was pregnant with twins; he alleged he might be the biological father. Genetic testing showed a 99.9% probability Apurba was the biological father.
The twins were born in June 2020 to Indraja while she was married to Indraneel; birth certificates initially named Indraneel as father.
The district court entered a decree (March 21, 2022) finding Apurba the biological father and ordering joint custody and child support.
Indraneel appealed; Indraja cross-appealed, both contesting the court’s jurisdiction/standing to establish paternity in an outside alleged father.
The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the district court’s decree and dismissed Apurba’s petition, holding Apurba (a stranger to the marriage) lacked standing because children born during the marriage are presumed legitimate under Nebraska law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Apurba)	Defendant's Argument (Indraneel/Indraja)	Held
Standing: Can a non‑spouse alleged father bring a §43‑1411 paternity action for children born to a married mother?	As the alleged father with DNA showing paternity, he may bring a §43‑1411 action to establish paternity.	Children born during marriage are presumed legitimate; an outsider lacks standing to challenge that legitimacy.	Majority: Apurba lacks standing; petition dismissed. Dissent would find standing.
Meaning of “child born out of wedlock” for §43‑1401/43‑1411 — does birth during marriage exclude §43‑1411 relief?	The children qualify as born out of wedlock for purposes of §43‑1411 because Apurba (not married to mother) is the biological father.	The statutory presumption of legitimacy (§42‑377) means children born during marriage are not “born out of wedlock” for §43‑1411.	Majority: presumption controls; such children are not within §43‑1411. Dissent disagrees.
Validity of district court’s paternity decree and related orders (custody/support) given jurisdictional challenge	DNA and procedural rulings by trial court support decree.	Court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction because plaintiff lacked standing.	Supreme Court vacated the decree and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

State on behalf of Miah S. v. Ian K., 306 Neb. 372 (2020) (interprets §§43‑1401/43‑1411 — child born during marriage not a child “born out of wedlock” for §43‑1411 actions)
Alisha C. v. Jeremy C., 283 Neb. 340 (2012) (marital presumption of legitimacy is rebuttable only by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence)
Gomez v. State ex rel. Larez, 157 Neb. 738 (1953) (a married woman may seek to establish paternity in someone other than her husband)
Heiden v. Norris, 300 Neb. 171 (2018) (standing inquiry focuses on the party, not the claim; assume claim’s validity when assessing standing)
Bogue v. Gillis, 311 Neb. 445 (2022) (doctrine that legislative acquiescence may be inferred from failure to amend a judicial construction)