Peterson v. Jacobitz
309 Neb. 486
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Jodi (now Ronhovde) gave birth to Kooper in February 2013 in Kearney (Buffalo County), Nebraska.
- Jodi later sought a stepparent adoption in Phelps County and her counsel served notice on Austin Peterson as the identified putative father.
- Austin filed a Complaint to Establish Paternity and Objection to Proposed Adoption in Phelps County (Oct. 2019) and moved to transfer to Buffalo County; the Phelps County Court granted the transfer.
- Buffalo County Court dismissed the transferred action, ruling Phelps County never had jurisdiction to transfer under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05 and thus Buffalo lacked jurisdiction.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, treating § 43-104.05(1) as venue language and holding Phelps had subject-matter jurisdiction under § 24-517 and could transfer; the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Peterson's Argument | Jacobitz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Phelps County Court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Austin’s petition and to transfer it to Buffalo County | Phelps County has exclusive original jurisdiction over adoption matters under § 24-517; § 43-104.05(1) governs venue only, so Phelps could properly transfer to the county of birth | § 43-104.05(4)(a) vests jurisdiction in the county court of the county where the child was born, so Phelps never had jurisdiction and thus could not transfer | Court held Phelps had jurisdiction via § 24-517; § 43-104.05(1) is venue language and Phelps could transfer the case |
| Whether § 43-104.05(4)(a) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the county where the child was born or instead specifies timing/extent of a court’s authority | § 43-104.05(4)(a) should not be read to displace general jurisdictional grant; it concerns the court’s exercise of authority | § 43-104.05(4)(a) creates exclusive jurisdiction in the birth-county court, rendering filings elsewhere void | Court held § 43-104.05(4)(a) sets timing/length for exercising jurisdiction; it does not supplant the jurisdictional grant in § 24-517 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437 (2018) (addressing adoption/paternity procedural issues)
- Anderson v. A & R Ag Spraying & Trucking, 306 Neb. 484 (2020) (statutory-interpretation principle: give effect to legislative intent)
- E.M. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 306 Neb. 1 (2020) (statutory-interpretation principle: avoid rendering statutory language superfluous)
- Peterson v. Jacobitz, 29 Neb. App. 486 (2021) (Neb. Ct. App. decision treating § 43-104.05(1) as venue, permitting transfer)