In re Adoption of Yasmin S., 956 N.W.2d 704

Kelly H. and Maria V., a same-sex couple married in California in 2008, have lived in Nebraska and have cared for Yasmin S., born in 2017 to Maria’s sister, who executed a relinquishment and consent to adoption; the putative father did not contest adoption.
In May 2020 Kelly and Maria petitioned the Dixon County Court to adopt Yasmin; the court raised concern that the petition described the adoptive parents as “wife and wife.”
The county court denied the petition, concluding it lacked authority to permit adoption by a “wife and wife,” relying on dictionary definitions of “husband” and “wife” that presuppose opposite-sex spouses.
Kelly and Maria appealed directly to the Nebraska Supreme Court (bypassing the Court of Appeals); the Nebraska Attorney General declined to participate.
The Supreme Court addressed whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-101(1) permits a same-sex married couple to adopt, applying plain-meaning and other statutory-construction canons, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 43-101(1) permits a same-sex married couple to adopt a minor	§ 43-101(1) allows “any adult person or persons” to adopt; a spouse joined the petition, so adoption is authorized	County court: historical meanings of “husband”/“wife” imply opposite-sex spouses; thus court lacked authority to permit “wife and wife” adoption	Court: Statute’s plain text permits adoption by a same-sex married couple; reversed and remanded
Whether to interpret “husband” and “wife” by their time-of-enactment meanings or present ordinary meaning	Use current ordinary meanings and plain text	Use historic definitions in effect when statute was last amended	Court: Result is the same under either approach; statute permits the adoption
Whether constitutional claims (due process/equal protection) must be decided	Kelly & Maria: county court’s interpretation violated constitutional rights	County court avoided constitutional questions by statutory construction; no developed state defense on appeal	Court: Did not reach constitutional issues because statute resolved the case; chose the interpretation preserving validity

Heiden v. Norris, 300 Neb. 171 (2018) (Nebraska precedent on statutory interpretation)
In re Adoption of Luke, 263 Neb. 365 (2002) (adoption is a statutory, not common-law, proceeding)
In re Petition of Anonymous 5, 286 Neb. 640 (2013) (courts may not rewrite statutes to achieve a desired result)
Transport Workers of Am. v. Transit Auth. of City of Omaha, 205 Neb. 26 (1979) (when possible, adopt a construction that preserves a statute’s constitutionality)
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (constitutional right to same-sex marriage; provided constitutional backdrop)
State ex rel. BH Media Group v. Frakes, 305 Neb. 780 (2020) (statutory construction principles applied by Nebraska Supreme Court)