Peterson v. Jacobitz
961 N.W.2d 258
Neb.2021Background:
- Jodi gave birth to Kooper in Kearney (Buffalo County) in 2013; Austin is the putative father.
- Jodi and her husband filed for a stepparent adoption in Phelps County; Austin was given notice and then filed a Complaint to Establish Paternity and Objection to Proposed Adoption in Phelps County (Oct. 2019).
- Austin moved to transfer venue to Buffalo County at a December 2019 hearing; the Phelps County Court granted the transfer, concluding it lacked jurisdiction per Nebraska statute.
- Buffalo County Court dismissed the transferred complaint, ruling Phelps County never had jurisdiction to transfer under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, holding § 43-104.05(1) prescribes venue (county of birth) but does not strip county courts of adoption jurisdiction under § 24-517, so Phelps could transfer the case to Buffalo.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeals: § 43-104.05(1) is venue language; § 43-104.05(4)(a) prescribes timing/extent of a court’s exercise of authority, not a grant of jurisdiction that overrides § 24-517.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Austin) | Defendant's Argument (Jodi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Phelps County Court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear or transfer Austin’s complaint under § 43-104.05 | Phelps had jurisdiction under § 24-517 for adoption matters; filing in Phelps was venue error only and Phelps could transfer to proper venue (Buffalo) | § 43-104.05(4)(a) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the county where the child was born (Buffalo), so Phelps lacked jurisdiction to act or transfer | Affirmed Court of Appeals: Phelps had jurisdiction; § 43-104.05(1) is venue language and Phelps could transfer the case to Buffalo |
| Whether § 43-104.05(4)(a) confers jurisdiction on the county where the child was born or governs timing/duration of a court’s authority | § 43-104.05(4)(a) does not create jurisdiction; it limits timing/extent of a court’s exercise of authority | § 43-104.05(4)(a) should be read to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the county of birth | Held: (4)(a) concerns timing/duration of jurisdictional exercise, not the source of jurisdiction; jurisdiction derives from § 24-517 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437, 918 N.W.2d 834 (Neb. 2018) (discussed in context of adoption notice and registry procedures)
- Anderson v. A & R Ag Spraying & Trucking, 306 Neb. 484, 946 N.W.2d 435 (Neb. 2020) (statutory interpretation principles)
- E.M. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 306 Neb. 1, 944 N.W.2d 252 (Neb. 2020) (rules on giving effect to entire statutory language)
- Peterson v. Jacobitz, 29 Neb. App. 486, 955 N.W.2d 329 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021) (Court of Appeals decision reversing dismissal; affirmed by Nebraska Supreme Court)