Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 287 Neb. 617

This is an adoption proceeding involving unwed biological father Jeremiah J. and Dakota D. over whether Jeremiah’s consent is required for placing the child for adoption.
The county court granted summary judgment on consent but later remanded after this court found a material issue of fact regarding estoppel from Dakota’s alleged misrepresentation of the child’s birth date.
On remand, a bench trial was held and the county court concluded Jeremiah’s consent is required and Dakota appealed.
Dakota argues several exceptions under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.22 (Reissue 2008) negate the need for Jeremiah’s consent, including abandonment, unfitness, and failure to provide support.
The appellate court reviews adoption orders for error on the record and defers to the county court’s credibility determinations where facts conflict.
The court ultimately affirms, concluding Jeremiah’s consent was required and Dakota failed to prove the § 43-104.22 exceptions by clear and convincing evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consent requirement under § 43-104.22	Jeremiah: consent required; Dakota’s exceptions do not negate this.	Dakota: exceptions (abandonment, unfitness, failure to provide support) negate consent.	Consent required; exceptions not proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Fit, proper, and suitable custodial parent	Jeremiah is fit and capable of custodial care.	Dakota argues Jeremiah is not fit due to conduct and history.	Dakota failed to prove unfitness by clear and convincing evidence.
Abandonment/neglect and failure to provide support during pregnancy	Jeremiah attempted contact after birth; Dakota’s concealment hindered him.	Dakota contends Jeremiah abandoned or failed to support.	Evidence did not establish abandonment or pregnancy-era non-support by clear and convincing proof.

In re Adoption of Jaden M., 272 Neb. 789, 725 N.W.2d 410 (2006) (Neb. 2006) (clarifies that § 43-104.22 exceptions must be proved by clear and convincing evidence when terminating parental rights.)
In re Adoption of Corbin J., 278 Neb. 1057, 775 N.W.2d 404 (2009) (Neb. 2009) (treatment of parental rights termination standards relevant to adoption exceptions.)
In re Interest of Hope L. et al., 278 Neb. 869, 775 N.W.2d 384 (2009) (Neb. 2009) (recognizes need for clear and convincing evidence in adoption-related findings.)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000) (U.S. 2000) (recognition of parental rights as fundamental liberty interest.)
In re Interest of Kendra M. et al., 283 Neb. 1014, 814 N.W.2d 747 (2012) (Neb. 2012) (clarifies standards for parental fitness and unfitness.)