Jennifer T. v. Lindsay P.
298 Neb. 800
| Neb. | 2018Background
- Lindsay (biological mother) conceived child Chase via anonymous donor; Jennifer (former partner) lived as a co-parent from birth and claims in loco parentis status.
- Jennifer filed a district court custody/support action seeking sole legal and physical custody and child support.
- Lindsay and her wife Jessica filed a stepparent adoption petition in county court; Lindsay requested district court consent under § 43-104(1)(b).
- District court initially stayed the custody action pending the adoption; county court denied Jennifer’s intervention and stay but this was reversed by the Nebraska Supreme Court in In re Adoption of Chase T.
- After reversal, district court consented to the adoption and reissued a stay of the custody action “until further order.” Jennifer appealed the consent and the stay.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the consent order or the stay were final, appealable orders and concluded neither was a final order; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court’s consent to county-court adoption is a final, appealable order | Jennifer: consent affects her substantial rights (intervention/standing) and should be reviewable now | Lindsay: consent merely permits county court to proceed; it is not a merits determination and is not final | Consent is not a final order; it does not affect a substantial right because it does not decide adoption merits |
| Whether district court’s stay of custody proceedings is a final, appealable order | Jennifer: stay defers district court’s jurisdictional priority and may permanently moot her custody claim/ability to intervene | Lindsay: stay is temporary, preserves status quo, and judicial-administration deferment does not affect plaintiff’s substantial rights | Stay is not a final order; temporary deferral of jurisdictional priority does not, by itself, affect a substantial right |
| Whether in loco parentis status must be decided by district court before adoption proceeds | Jennifer: district court must determine her in loco parentis status first; otherwise county court may deny intervention | Lindsay: county court (with consent) can address standing/intervention as part of adoption; in loco parentis is transitory and standing can be decided in the adoption proceeding | In loco parentis is standing and transitory; county court can determine standing; district court’s consent/stay do not preclude county court review |
| Whether jurisdictional priority doctrine makes the stay appealable | Jennifer: district court’s deferral improperly relinquishes its priority and harms her rights | Lindsay: jurisdictional priority concerns judicial administration and courts may relinquish; effect on party’s rights is controlling | Jurisdictional priority protects courts’ administration; relinquishment here did not substantially prejudice Jennifer’s ability to vindicate rights on appeal in the adoption proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Latham v. Schwerdtfeger, 282 Neb. 121 (recognizing in loco parentis standing for former partner)
- In re Adoption of Chase T., 295 Neb. 390 (county court lacked jurisdiction without district court consent)
- Charleen J. v. Blake O., 289 Neb. 454 (doctrine of jurisdictional priority and its limits)
- In re Adoption of Madysen S. et al., 293 Neb. 646 (orders related to consent to adoption not final)
- Kremer v. Rural Community Ins. Co., 280 Neb. 591 (stay compelling arbitration can be final when tantamount to dismissal)
- Klein v. Klein, 230 Neb. 385 (consent to adoption not a final order)
- In re Guardianship of Brydon P., 286 Neb. 661 (discussing transitory nature of in loco parentis)