In re Adoption of Jaelyn B.
293 Neb. 917
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Jaelyn was born in Ohio in April 2013; her mother Heather and Jesse signed an Ohio Acknowledgment of Paternity the day after birth, which became final after the rescission window expired and was recorded on the birth certificate.
- Heather later returned to Nebraska with Jaelyn and initiated relinquishment/ adoption activity; prospective adoptive parent Tylee filed a Nebraska adoption petition in August 2014.
- Jesse filed a habeas/declaratory action in Nebraska district court and a custody action in Ohio; he also objected and moved to intervene in the Douglas County (Nebraska) adoption proceeding, asserting he was a legal father under Ohio law and that Nebraska must give full faith and credit to Ohio’s paternity determination.
- The Douglas County Court admitted genetic test results excluding Jesse as biological father, treated him as a putative father under Nebraska law, denied his motion to intervene, and entered an adoption decree in January 2015.
- On appeal, Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1406(1) requires Nebraska to give full faith and credit to an out-of-state voluntary paternity acknowledgment and whether Nebraska statutes authorize a county court to disestablish an acknowledged father’s parental rights via adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jesse) | Defendant's Argument (Tylee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nebraska must give full faith and credit to Ohio’s voluntary paternity acknowledgment | Ohio acknowledgment is a final determination of paternity; § 43-1406(1) requires Nebraska to recognize it | Nebraska adoption statutes should control; recognized status shouldn’t override Nebraska public policy | Held: § 43-1406(1) requires Nebraska to give full faith and credit to Ohio’s paternity determination and its legal effect (including consent rights) |
| Whether Nebraska adoption statutes (putative/unwed father provisions) allow disestablishing an acknowledged father’s paternity by adoption | An acknowledged father is not merely a putative father; Nebraska cannot treat him as such to avoid full faith and credit | Genetic testing shows Jesse is not biological father; § 43-104.22(11) makes consent unnecessary for a man who is not the biological father | Held: Jesse is a legal/acknowledged father under Ohio law (equivalent to a judgment); § 43-104.22(11) does not apply to displace an out-of-state acknowledged father’s rights |
| Whether Jesse had a direct legal interest and standing to intervene in the Nebraska adoption | As the legal father under Ohio law, he would directly gain/lose by the adoption and thus may intervene | He is a putative/non-biological father under Nebraska law and lacks sufficient interest to intervene | Held: County court erred in denying intervention because it failed to apply full faith and credit to Ohio’s determination; Jesse had a legally cognizable interest |
| Whether the county court had jurisdiction to enter the adoption decree without Jesse’s consent | Ohio granted Jesse consent rights; Nebraska lacked authority to decree adoption that disestablished that out-of-state parental status | County court possesses exclusive jurisdiction over adoptions and may apply Nebraska statutes to determine consent | Held: Because Nebraska must give full faith and credit to Ohio’s paternity determination, the county court lacked jurisdiction to disestablish Jesse’s parental status by adoption; adoption decree vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesar C. v. Alicia L., 281 Neb. 979 (Neb. 2011) (a voluntary paternity acknowledgment, after rescission period, operates as a legal finding of paternity equivalent to a judicial determination)
- In re Trust Created by Nixon, 277 Neb. 546 (Neb. 2009) (Full Faith and Credit Clause principles and recognition of sister-state proceedings)
- Spady v. Spady, 284 Neb. 885 (Neb. 2012) (discusses collateral-attack limits on judgments and related principles)