Heiden v. Norris
300 Neb. 171
| Neb. | 2018Background
- Tracy and Katherine Norris divorced in Nebraska; they had three children. Katherine died in July 2016.
- The children lived with Tracy in Colorado; Frederick and Ann Heiden (the Heidens) lived in Nebraska and had raised Katherine since age 3, though they were not her biological or adoptive parents.
- The Heidens sued under Nebraska’s grandparent visitation statutes seeking visitation with the minor children, alleging a longstanding beneficial relationship.
- Tracy did not initially appear; the district court entered default judgment granting visitation in January 2017.
- Tracy moved to vacate and appealed, arguing the Heidens lacked standing because they were not biological or adoptive grandparents as defined by statute.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation and vacated the visitation order, directing dismissal because the Heidens do not fall within the statutory definition of “grandparent.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Heiden) | Defendant's Argument (Norris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heidens have standing to sue for grandparent visitation | Heidens are proper parties because they assert grandparent status and a beneficial relationship | Norris: Heidens lack standing because they are not biological or adoptive grandparents under the statute | Standing: Heidens have procedural standing (party-focused inquiry), but merits fail because they are not statutorily defined grandparents |
| Whether the Heidens meet the statutory definition of “grandparent” under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1801 to 43-1803 | The statute’s phrase “unless the context otherwise requires” allows considering the factual context (i.e., de facto raising of Katherine) to qualify them as grandparents | The statute plainly limits “grandparent” to biological or adoptive parent of the child’s biological/adoptive parent; Heidens are neither | Held: Statute’s plain meaning controls; Heidens are not grandparents under the statute, so they cannot obtain visitation |
| Whether grandparent visitation statutes should be broadly construed to include nonlegal grandparents | Heidens urged a broader, context-driven construction to protect the children’s beneficial relationships | Norris urged strict construction: grandparent visitation is statutory, not common-law, so limited to definition provided | Held: Statutes in derogation of common law are strictly construed; grandparent visitation limited to statutory definition |
| Remedy after concluding Heidens fall outside statutory definition | Heidens sought confirmation of visitation rights based on established relationship | Norris sought vacatur of visitation order and dismissal | Held: Visitation order vacated; case remanded with directions to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamit v. Hamit, 271 Neb. 659, 715 N.W.2d 512 (Neb. 2006) (upholding constitutionality of Nebraska’s grandparent visitation statutes and noting narrow statutory limits)
- Pig Pro Nonstock Co-op v. Moore, 253 Neb. 72, 568 N.W.2d 217 (Neb. 1997) (discussing that “context” means statutory context, not factual circumstances)
- Karo v. Nau Country Ins. Co., 297 Neb. 798, 901 N.W.2d 689 (Neb. 2017) (jurisdictional/standing discussion cited)
- Davis v. Gale, 299 Neb. 377, 908 N.W.2d 618 (Neb. 2018) (statutory interpretation principles)