969 N.W.2d 134
Neb. Ct. App.2021Background
- Child Melanie born Dec 2012; mother Channing Eurek later began a relationship with Brian Peister; the couple cohabited from 2014 to Aug 2016.
- While cohabiting, Peister regularly cared for Melanie (play, pickup, occasional vacations) and contributed to household funds, including some daycare payments.
- After the romantic relationship ended (Aug 2016), Peister continued to spend time with Melanie and intermittently provided financial support through late 2018.
- Eurek hired nannies after moving in 2018, reducing Peister’s caregiving; Peister stopped daycare payments in 2018 and contact was cut off by Eurek in early 2020.
- Peister filed a June 2020 complaint seeking custody/parenting time under an in loco parentis theory; after a Jan 2021 evidentiary hearing the district court dismissed the complaint, finding he did not stand in loco parentis.
- Peister appealed; the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed, holding he did not assume the full parental obligations and, if he previously had in loco parentis status, he lost it.
Issues
| Issue | Peister's Argument | Eurek's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Peister stands in loco parentis and thus has standing to seek parenting time | He assumed a father-figure role, provided care and financial support, and intended parental responsibilities | He acted only as a friend/backup caregiver with limited involvement in education, health, and major decisions | Court: No — Peister did not assume all parental obligations; lacks standing |
| If in loco parentis existed earlier, whether Peister lost that status | He claimed continuous parental role after separation | Eurek showed reduced involvement after 2018 and that Peister voluntarily stopped support and had limited decision-making role | Court: Even if it existed earlier, status was lost by early 2018 due to diminished duties |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawley v. Skradski, 304 Neb. 488 (Neb. 2019) (jurisdiction/standing review standards and when appellate review is de novo vs. clearly erroneous)
- Latham v. Schwerdtfeger, 282 Neb. 121 (Neb. 2011) (in loco parentis confers standing to seek custody/visitation)
- Windham v. Griffin, 295 Neb. 279 (Neb. 2016) (discussed limits of prior precedent)
- In re Guardianship of Brydon P., 286 Neb. 661 (Neb. 2013) (in loco parentis is doctrine of standing for nonparents seeking custody)
- Carroll v. Gould, 308 Neb. 12 (Neb. 2020) (definition and scope of in loco parentis obligations)
- State on behalf of Lilliana L. v. Hugo C., 26 Neb. App. 923 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019) (parental duties beyond support required for in loco parentis)
- Whilde v. Whilde, 298 Neb. 473 (Neb. 2017) (in loco parentis is transitory and may be lost when duties cease)