In re Adoption of Chase T.
295 Neb. 390
Neb.2016Background
- Lindsay P. gave birth to Chase in 2010; Chase was conceived via anonymous donor; Jennifer T. lived with Lindsay, helped raise Chase, and later claimed in loco parentis status.
- Lindsay and Jennifer separated in 2012; they continued a shared parenting schedule; Lindsay married Jessica P. in 2015.
- Jennifer filed a district-court action (Douglas County) in Aug. 2015 seeking custody and asserting in loco parentis status; trial was pending.
- About one month later, Lindsay and Jessica filed a stepparent adoption petition in county court; Jennifer moved to intervene in the adoption and moved to stay the adoption pending resolution of the district-court custody action.
- The county court held an evidentiary hearing, denied Jennifer’s intervention and stay, and dismissed her complaint; Jennifer appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court moved the case to its docket.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county court had jurisdiction to proceed with adoption absent district court consent when a custody case involving the child was pending in district court | Jennifer: County court lacked authority because Lindsay/Jessica did not obtain district-court consent as required by adoption statutes | Lindsay/Jessica: County court could proceed despite pending district-court custody action (implicitly contested the jurisdictional bar) | County court lacked statutory authority; without required district-court consent, county court cannot entertain the adoption or decide merits in the adoption proceeding |
| Whether statutory consents must be filed simultaneously with the adoption petition (pre-amendment rule) | Jennifer: Statutory consent requirement prevents county court action before consents filed; favors strict timing | Lindsay/Jessica: The amended statute changed timing; consents need only be filed prior to the adoption hearing | Court: While statutes no longer require filing "together with" the petition, consents must still be filed prior to any county-court hearing or adjudication on the merits |
| Effect of failing to file required consents | Jennifer: Failure to file district-court consent is a jurisdictional defect that requires dismissal | Lindsay/Jessica: (Implicit) procedural defect that should not bar preliminary proceedings | Court: Failure to file required consents is a jurisdictional defect; county court lacks jurisdiction to proceed |
| Whether the court could reach Jennifer's standing to intervene | Jennifer: She stands in loco parentis and thus can intervene | Lindsay/Jessica: Jennifer lacked standing to intervene | Court: Could not reach the merits of standing because county court lacked jurisdiction to decide the intervention claim |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Kassandra B. & Nicholas B., 248 Neb. 912 (1995) (failure to file required consents is a jurisdictional defect)
- In re Adoption of Corbin J., 278 Neb. 1057 (2009) (discusses adoption consent requirements and county court authority)
- Klein v. Klein, 230 Neb. 385 (1988) (district-court consent permits county court to entertain adoption)
- In re Adoption of Luke, 263 Neb. 365 (2002) (legislative intent presumes sensible results in statutory construction)
- In re Adoption of Madysen S., 293 Neb. 646 (2016) (adoption matters are statutory and strictly governed)
- In re Adoption of Jaelyn B., 293 Neb. 917 (2016) (appellate review principles for adoption matters)
- Hoppens v. Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 288 Neb. 857 (2014) (statutory interpretation: reconcile provisions to sensible result)
- Huntington v. Pedersen, 294 Neb. 294 (2016) (plain-meaning rule for statutory language)
- State ex rel. Lamm v. Nebraska Bd. of Pardons, 260 Neb. 1000 (2001) (appellate courts cannot reach merits when lower court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction)