Jesse B. v. Tylee H.
293 Neb. 973
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Jaelyn B. was born in Ohio in April 2013; her mother Heather and Jesse signed an Ohio Acknowledgment of Paternity the next day and did not timely rescind it; Ohio recorded Jesse as the father on the birth certificate.
- Heather arranged a private adoption; prospective adoptive parent Tylee filed to adopt in Douglas County, Nebraska, after which genetic testing in the county adoption proceeding showed another man was the biological father and the county court entered an adoption decree in January 2015.
- Jesse filed a habeas corpus and declaratory judgment action in Lancaster County District Court in June 2014, alleging (inter alia) that Nebraska must give full faith and credit to Ohio’s paternity determination and that his consent was required for the adoption; he also challenged the constitutionality of several Nebraska adoption statutes.
- The district court delayed resolution, took evidence of the county-court adoption, and ultimately dismissed Jesse’s action, holding it lacked jurisdiction to grant habeas relief and that Jesse lacked standing after the county court found he was not the biological father.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed: it held the district court erred in relinquishing jurisdiction to the county court, that § 43-1406(1) requires Nebraska to give full faith and credit to Ohio’s paternity acknowledgment, and that under Ohio law Jesse is a legal father whose consent is required for the adoption unless an Ohio exception applies; the case was remanded for further proceedings on custody and relinquishment validity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jesse) | Defendant's Argument (Tylee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear Jesse's habeas/declaratory claims | District court had concurrent jurisdiction; Jesse filed first and sought habeas to challenge alleged illegal detention and statutory constitutionality | County courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over adoptions; district court should defer and the county adoption decree bars relief | District court had jurisdiction and, under jurisdictional-priority doctrine, should not have deferred to county court; dismissal was error |
| Whether Nebraska must give full faith and credit to Ohio's paternity acknowledgment | § 43-1406 and Full Faith & Credit require Nebraska to treat Ohio's acknowledgement as a paternity determination that binds Nebraska courts | Nebraska statutes treat acknowledgments as rebuttable presumptions; genetic testing in county court showing nonbiological father controls | § 43-1406(1) requires giving full faith and credit to sister-state paternity determinations; Ohio acknowledgment has the effect of a legal father whose consent is required under Ohio law |
| Whether an adoption in Nebraska can terminate rights of an acknowledged legal father when genetic testing shows nonpaternity | An acknowledged father (after rescission period) is a legal/adjudicated father and cannot be deprived of consent by Nebraska adoption statutes when a sister-state determination says he is father | Nebraska § 43-104.22(11) permits omission of consent when the man is not the biological father | § 43-104.22(11) does not apply to an acknowledged (legal) father whose status arises from another state's statutory determination; adoption cannot disestablish such father without his consent under § 43-1406(1) |
| Standard and remedies on remand for custody/relinquishment disputes | Jesse seeks determination whether Heather's relinquishment and the private adoption were valid and whether he or Heather has custodial rights | Tylee relied on county adoption decree and best-interests analysis | Court must decide on remand (1) validity/voidability of Heather’s relinquishment, (2) parental rights under habeas (parental preference/due process applies), and (3) appropriate forum for custody (including Ohio proceedings) |
Key Cases Cited
- Shoecraft v. Catholic Social Servs. Bureau, 222 Neb. 574, 385 N.W.2d 448 (1986) (recognizing habeas as remedy to challenge custody/detention)
- Uhing v. Uhing, 241 Neb. 368, 488 N.W.2d 366 (1992) (parental preference and limits on best-interests-only determinations in habeas custody disputes)
- Cesar C. v. Alicia L., 281 Neb. 979, 800 N.W.2d 249 (2011) (paternity acknowledgment becomes legal finding after rescission period)
- Monty S. & Teresa S. v. Jason W. & Rebecca W., 290 Neb. 1048, 863 N.W.2d 484 (2015) (district court review of constitutional objections to county-court adoption decrees)
- Yopp v. Batt, 237 Neb. 779, 467 N.W.2d 868 (1991) (rules governing relinquishment, private adoption, and necessity of best-interests hearing when relinquishment invalid)
- Nielsen v. Nielsen, 207 Neb. 141, 296 N.W.2d 483 (1980) (habeas relief bars depriving parent of custody absent proof of unfitness or legal loss of rights)
- Terry v. State, 77 Neb. 612, 110 N.W. 733 (1906) (early precedent on jurisdictional priority where district court first assumes habeas jurisdiction)