Sabino v. Ozuna, 939 N.W.2d 757

Petitioner Ariana Bernal Sabino (raised in Mexico) alleged she suffered domestic abuse by Juan Ozuna beginning in her mid-teens; she separated from him, left their son in Mexico, and later reunited with the child in the U.S.
Sabino filed for dissolution in Douglas County (2017); Ozuna entered a voluntary appearance but did not personally appear at trial.
At trial Sabino sought custody (awarded to her) and requested specific factual findings relevant to Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status: abuse/abandonment, nonviability of reunification, and best interests for removal to Mexico.
The district court awarded divorce and custody to Sabino but struck the SIJ-related findings, expressing doubt about its authority to make such findings and questioning the sufficiency and sources of the evidence (and asking about immigration status).
Sabino appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court previously ruled she should have been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and here addresses whether the district court had authority to make SIJ findings and whether sufficient evidence existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Nebraska district court has authority to make SIJ-related factual findings under state law	Sabino: §43-1238(b) authorizes state courts to make factual findings (abuse/abandonment, nonviability of reunification, best interests) when requested	District court: lacked jurisdiction/purview to make SIJ findings (or needed more evidence)	Court: §43-1238(b) grants jurisdiction to courts that can make initial custody determinations; authority exists (amendments applied to pending cases)
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support SIJ-related findings	Sabino: offered affidavit and other evidence describing abuse/abandonment and family circumstances sufficient to request findings	District court: evidence was insufficient or not credible; court also questioned provenance of some facts and relevance of immigration status	Court: remanded — district court must consider the requests; it retains authority to assess credibility and sufficiency and may decline findings if evidence lacking; appellate court did not dictate specific findings

Sabino v. Ozuna, 303 Neb. 318, 928 N.W.2d 778 (2019) (prior appellate ruling regarding in forma pauperis; procedural history)
In re Guardianship of Carlos D., 300 Neb. 646, 915 N.W.2d 581 (2018) (held amendments to §43-1238 were procedural and apply to pending cases)
Burgardt v. Burgardt, 304 Neb. 356, 934 N.W.2d 488 (2019) (standards for de novo review and abuse of discretion in domestic relations)
Guardianship of Penate, 477 Mass. 268, 76 N.E.3d 960 (2017) (recognizes state courts' institutional competence to make child-welfare factual findings relevant to SIJ)
H.S.P. v. J.K., 223 N.J. 196, 121 A.3d 849 (2015) (similar treatment of state court role in SIJ factfinding)