Maria T. v. Jeremy S.
300 Neb. 563
Neb.2018Background
- Maria T., the biological mother, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of a child born in 2012, alleging her 2015 relinquishment and consent to adoption were obtained by coercion, false pretenses, or fraud.
- Maria attached a Communication and Contact Agreement signed by her and prospective adoptive (foster) parents Jeremy and Jamie; the agreement contemplated post-adoption contact but stated it was subject to court approval and cited Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-163.
- The petition alleged Jeremy and Jamie failed to allow promised contact; Maria asked the court to find the relinquishment invalid and return the child.
- At the district-court hearing, respondents moved to dismiss; exhibits (including Maria’s relinquishment, DHHS acceptance, the agreement, and the juvenile court adoption bill of exceptions) were received; the juvenile court had approved the adoption but expressly did not approve the communication and contact agreement.
- The district court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim (and alternatively granted summary judgment), concluding (1) Maria did not allege court approval of the agreement, and (2) even if approved, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-164 precludes setting aside a relinquishment or adoption based on noncompliance with such agreements.
- Maria appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying proper habeas procedure and finding Maria’s pleaded facts insufficient to warrant discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas petition sufficiently alleges unlawful restraint to warrant discharge | Maria: relinquishment/consent invalid because procured by coercion/false pretenses/fraud and conditioned on retained parental rights (communication/contact agreement) | Jeremy & Jamie: petition fails to state a claim because agreement either was not court‑approved and/or statutory law bars using breach to set aside relinquishment/adoption | Held: Petition insufficient; allegations (even if agreement existed) cannot invalidate relinquishment under § 43‑164; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether a private or oral promise to maintain contact can void a relinquishment | Maria: asserted oral/private promises separate from the written agreement could show fraud/duress | Respondents: statutes encompass written and oral agreements and require court approval; breach cannot revoke relinquishment | Held: Statutes cover oral/written agreements when adoptee was in DHHS custody; enforcement does not permit revoking relinquishment or dissolving adoption |
| Proper procedure in child custody habeas proceedings | Maria: (implicitly) proceeded under habeas rules as filed | Respondents/district court: treated matter via motion to dismiss/summary judgment | Held: Court clarified §§ 29‑2801–29‑2824 govern child custody habeas; motion to quash is the proper vehicle to attack sufficiency, not a civil motion to dismiss—but procedural error was harmless because petition failed on the merits |
| Whether constitutional challenge to statutes may be raised on appeal | Maria: (raised for first time on appeal) statutes are unconstitutional | Respondents: challenge waived for failure to raise below and to follow App. Ct. rule notice to AG | Held: Constitutional challenge not considered (waived and procedural noncompliance with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2‑109(E)) |
Key Cases Cited
- Monty S. v. Jason W., 290 Neb. 1048 (2015) (standard for de novo review of habeas custody decisions)
- Sanders v. Frakes, 295 Neb. 374 (2016) (habeas corpus as constitutional remedy and statutory procedure)
- In re Application of Tail; Tail v. Olson, 144 Neb. 820 (1944) (habeas procedure and returns)
- Nebraska Children’s Home Society v. State, 57 Neb. 765 (1899) (child custody habeas and motion to quash to attack sufficiency)
- Rehbein v. Clarke, 257 Neb. 406 (1999) (review despite procedural missteps when petition insufficient)
- Christopherson v. Christopherson, 177 Neb. 414 (1964) (treatment of child custody habeas proceedings)
- Mayfield v. Hartmann, 221 Neb. 122 (1985) (limits on collateral attacks by habeas corpus)
- Jesse B. v. Tylee H., 293 Neb. 973 (2016) (habeas corpus as remedy to challenge legality of adoption custody)
- Sedlacek v. Greenholtz, 152 Neb. 386 (1950) (motion to quash recognized as proper challenge to writ sufficiency)