In re Change of Name of Whilde, 298 Neb. 510

Child born Jan 2010; mother Hannah filed petition Dec 21, 2016 to change child’s middle names and surname; published notice for two weeks.
Hearing held Jan 24, 2017; court found statutory notice given, no objection, and ordered name change.
Margaret (appellant) filed a motion to vacate Feb 7, 2017, asserting she was a "noncustodial parent" entitled to certified-mail notice under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,271(2) and had not received such notice.
Margaret’s claim relied on a prior Texas order that had named her a “Non-Parent Possessory Conservator” and on a pending Nebraska modification/custody appeal challenging a Dec 16, 2016 Nebraska order that had awarded sole legal and physical custody to Hannah and granted Margaret no custody/visitation.
District court denied Margaret’s motion to vacate; she appealed the denial (timely as to the denial) but did not timely appeal the Jan 24 name-change order itself.
Supreme Court affirmed: Margaret was not a "noncustodial parent" under § 25-21,271(2) at the relevant times because the Nebraska Dec 16 order extinguished her legal rights and was not stayed pending appeal; thus certified-mail notice was not required and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Margaret)	Defendant's Argument (Hannah)	Held
Whether Margaret was a "noncustodial parent" entitled to certified-mail notice under § 25-21,271(2)	Her Texas-appointed "Temporary Non-Parent Possessory Conservator" status and in loco parentis findings meant she qualified as a noncustodial parent and thus should have received certified-mail notice.	Texas order labeled her a non-parent and Nebraska’s Dec 16, 2016 order terminated her custody/visitation rights; she was not a legal parent and thus not entitled to certified-mail notice.	Margaret was not a "noncustodial parent" at relevant times; no certified-mail notice required.
Whether the court abused discretion by denying motion to vacate the name-change order	The absence of certified-mail notice to a noncustodial parent rendered the Jan 24 order procedurally defective and should be vacated.	The statutory notice requirement was satisfied by publication; Margaret had no statutory entitlement to certified-mail notice.	No abuse of discretion; district court properly denied motion to vacate.
Timeliness of appeal of the Jan 24 name-change order	(Argued implicitly) She sought relief from that order via the motion to vacate and appeal.	The notice of appeal for the Jan 24 order was untimely; only the denial of the motion to vacate was timely appealed.	Appeal of the Jan 24 order was untimely and not considered; review limited to denial of motion to vacate.

Kibler v. Kibler, 287 Neb. 1027 (2014) (court has inherent power to vacate or modify judgments during the term and review for abuse of discretion)
State v. Hausmann, 277 Neb. 819 (2009) (motion invoking inherent power to vacate does not toll appeal period absent rule)
Windham v. Griffin, 295 Neb. 279 (2016) (in loco parentis is temporary and not equivalent to legal parenthood for all purposes)
Davis v. State, 297 Neb. 955 (2017) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Hall v. Hall, 176 Neb. 555 (1964) (appeal does not operate as a stay absent supersedeas; custody orders remain effective unless superseded)