Michael E. v. State, 286 Neb. 532

Michael E. sought §1983 relief on behalf of Avalyn J. for alleged failure to notify him of juvenile proceedings; he paid child support and was adjudicated as Avalyn’s father.
Juvenile proceedings concerned abuse/neglect/dependency; Avalyn was placed with her maternal grandmother then with Michael and his wife.
Statutes 43-263 and 43-265 purportedly allowed non-notification; district court deemed them unconstitutional but barred monetary relief due to sovereign immunity.
The district court held sovereign immunity barred official-capacity monetary claims, but allowed declaratory/injunctive relief against state officials.
The district court later found Department employees entitled to qualified immunity for alleged constitutional violations rooted in following statutes that had not been declared unconstitutional.
Appellant was granted shared custody later; the court denied injunctive relief and concluded department employees were shielded from damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sovereign immunity bars monetary claims against State entities	Michael contends sovereign immunity does not bar his monetary claims	State argues immunity protects the State, Department, and officials in official capacity	Monetary claims barred by sovereign immunity
Whether declaratory/injunctive relief against state officials is barred	Michael seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against future notices	State argues immunity shields officials from such relief	Sovereign immunity does not bar declaratory/injunctive relief against state officials
Constitutionality of §§ 43-263 and 43-265 as applied	Statutes cannot constitutionally avoid notice to adjudicated/biological fathers	Statutes may be constitutional if properly applied	Statutes unconstitutional insofar as they permit avoiding notice to certain fathers; constitutionality preserved only with proper notification prior to dispositional phase
Qualified immunity for Department employees	Employees should be liable for violating known rights	Conduct followed statutes not yet declared unconstitutional	Employees shielded by qualified immunity; rights not clearly established at the time of conduct
Whether injunction was appropriate	Request to restrain improper application of statutes	Injunction extraordinary and not warranted given current custody status	Injunction denied; not a proper remedy at this stage.

Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (unmarried father’s rights depend on established relationship)
Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1978) (unmarried father not entitled to veto adoption absent established relationship)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (due process for parental rights depends on relationship and fitness)
In re Adoption of Corbin J., 278 Neb. 1057, 775 N.W.2d 404 (Neb. 2009) (adoptive rights and protections for fathers with established ties)
In re Interest of Mainor T. & Estela T., 267 Neb. 232, 674 N.W.2d 442 (Neb. 2004) (due process notice in juvenile proceedings)
In re Interest of Amber G. et al., 250 Neb. 973, 554 N.W.2d 142 (Neb. 1996) (notice and parental rights considerations in custody cases)
In re Interest of Jaden M., 272 Neb. 789, 725 N.W.2d 410 (Neb. 2006) (parental rights and notices in juvenile proceedings)
State on behalf of Pathammavong v. Pathammavong, 268 Neb. 1, 679 N.W.2d 749 (Neb. 2004) (due process considerations for paternal rights)