Peterson v. Jacobitz
309 Neb. 486
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Jodi (now Ronhovde) gave birth to Kooper in February 2013 in Kearney (Buffalo County), Nebraska.
- Jodi and her husband petitioned the Phelps County Court for a stepparent adoption; Austin was identified as the putative biological father and was given notice.
- Austin filed a Complaint to Establish Paternity and Objection to Proposed Adoption in Phelps County (Oct. 2019).
- Phelps County Court concluded venue required filing in the county where the child was born and transferred the case to Buffalo County; Buffalo County dismissed, ruling Phelps lacked jurisdiction to transfer under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, treating § 43-104.05(1) as venue language and holding Phelps had jurisdiction to transfer; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Phelps County had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear or transfer Austin’s paternity/objection action under § 43-104.05 | Peterson: Phelps had jurisdiction as a county court over adoption matters and could transfer for venue reasons | Jacobitz: § 43-104.05(4)(a) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the county court of the child’s birth, so Phelps lacked power to act or transfer | Held: § 24-517 grants county courts jurisdiction; § 43-104.05(1) is venue; § 43-104.05(4)(a) governs timing/duration of exercise of jurisdiction, not the jurisdictional grant—transfer was valid |
| Whether § 43-104.05(1) or § 43-104.05(4)(a) controls the filing/location question | Peterson: § 43-104.05(1) governs where the petition should be filed (venue), so transfer is proper | Jacobitz: § 43-104.05(4)(a) expressly gives jurisdiction to the county where the child was born, precluding other county courts | Held: § 43-104.05(1) is venue language; § 43-104.05(4)(a) sets the duration/timing of jurisdiction, must be read harmoniously with § 24-517 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437, 918 N.W.2d 834 (2018) (discussion of putative father notice and adoption statutory scheme)
- Anderson v. A & R Ag Spraying & Trucking, 306 Neb. 484, 946 N.W.2d 435 (2020) (principles of statutory construction: plain meaning governs)
- E.M. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 306 Neb. 1, 944 N.W.2d 252 (2020) (statutory interpretation rules require harmonizing all provisions)
- Peterson v. Jacobitz, 29 Neb. App. 486, 955 N.W.2d 329 (2021) (Neb. Ct. App. decision holding the Phelps County Court had jurisdiction to transfer; affirmed by Nebraska Supreme Court)