Maria T. v. Jeremy S.
915 N.W.2d 441
Neb.2018Background
- Maria T., the biological mother, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of her child, alleging her 2015 relinquishment and consent to adoption were obtained by coercion, false pretenses, or fraud and conditioned on retained parental contact rights.
- Maria attached a Communication and Contact Agreement signed by her and the foster/adoptive parents (Jeremy and Jamie), which provided for post-adoption contact but stated any such agreement required court approval and that breach could not be grounds to set aside an adoption under § 43-163/43-164.
- Jeremy and Jamie moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; at the hearing the court received exhibits (including Maria’s relinquishment and the juvenile court adoption record showing the adoption was approved but the contact agreement was not approved).
- The district court dismissed Maria’s petition with prejudice, concluding (1) she did not allege the contact agreement was court-approved, and (2) even if approved, statutory law (§ 43-164) prohibits invalidating a relinquishment or adoption based on breach of such agreements.
- On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that although the lower court should have followed habeas-specific procedure (writ issuance and a motion to quash), Maria’s pleaded facts nevertheless failed to state a claim entitling her to relief because the statutes bar revocation of relinquishment or adoption for breach of communication/contact agreements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper habeas procedure (motion to dismiss vs motion to quash) | Maria proceeded under habeas; dismissal under civil rule was inappropriate | Jeremy & Jamie treated pleading defects under motion to dismiss/summary judgment | Court: Habeas statutes require writ issuance and motion to quash; trial court erred procedurally but outcome reviewed on the merits |
| Sufficiency of allegations to invalidate relinquishment based on contact agreement | Maria: relinquishment was conditioned on contact and thus invalid due to breach | Defendants: statutory scheme forecloses using agreement breach to revoke relinquishment or adoption | Held: Allegations insufficient; statutes bar setting aside relinquishment/adoption for breach |
| Whether oral promises not in court-approved agreement avoid statute | Maria: breach of private/oral promises supports challenge | Defendants: §§ 43-162–43-164 cover written and oral agreements when adoptee was in DHHS custody and require court approval | Held: Statutes encompass oral or written agreements for DHHS adoptees; enforceable only if court-approved and breach cannot void adoption/relinquishment |
| Constitutional challenge to statutes (raised on appeal) | Maria: statutes are unconstitutional (argued for first time on appeal) | Defendants: challenge was not raised below and procedural rules for constitutional challenges were not followed | Held: Constitutional argument waived on appeal for failure to raise below and to comply with appellate rule notice requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Monty S. v. Jason W., 290 Neb. 1048 (discussing de novo review of habeas custody decisions)
- State v. Determan, 292 Neb. 557 (standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Sanders v. Frakes, 295 Neb. 374 (habeas corpus as constitutional remedy and statutory procedure)
- In re Application of Tail; Tail v. Olson, 144 Neb. 820 (describing respondent’s return and habeas procedure)
- Nebraska Children’s Home Society v. State, 57 Neb. 765 (child-custody habeas and motion to quash as method to attack sufficiency)
- Rehbein v. Clarke, 257 Neb. 406 (reviewing merits despite procedural errors in habeas procedure)
- Jesse B. v. Tylee H., 293 Neb. 973 (recognizing habeas as appropriate to challenge custody/adoption legality)