State on behalf of Daphnie F. v. Christina C.
310 Neb. 638
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Child born 2014; removed from parents in 2016 and placed with paternal grandparents Mary and Tim Soppe; Colorado court (Jan. 17, 2017) awarded the Soppes "permanent, legal and physical custody."
- Christina (biological mother) later moved to Nebraska; Nebraska registered the Colorado custody order; Nebraska found proper jurisdiction under the UCCJEA after Christina filed to modify custody (Feb. 13, 2020).
- Trial (Oct. 1, 2020) focused on Christina’s history of substance abuse and criminal probation (completed Feb. 2019); by summer 2020 parenting time was roughly 50/50 by agreement and Christina asserted sobriety and treatment participation.
- The district court found the Soppes stood in loco parentis, credited concerns about Christina’s past drug/alcohol use and some inconsistent statements, concluded parental preference was negated, and denied Christina’s request to modify custody (awarding limited, sobriety-conditioned visitation to Christina).
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the district court failed to apply the analytical framework from State on behalf of Tina K. v. Adam B. for parent vs. in loco parentis modification disputes (did not first determine parental fitness or whether exceptional circumstances rebut parental preference).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying Christina’s modification request | Christina: as the fit biological mother she has a superior right to custody and the court should award custody to her | Soppes/State: Soppes are in loco parentis, Colorado order placed custody with them due to Christina’s deficiencies; child’s best interests favor remaining with Soppes | Reversed and remanded: district court did not apply required Tina K. framework and thus abused discretion |
| Whether the parental preference presumption was rebutted | Christina: presumption applies unless she is unfit or has forfeited rights | Soppes/State: prior Colorado permanency finding and Soppes’ long-term stable care constitute exceptional circumstances | Court: trial court failed to determine fitness or require proof of "serious physical or psychological harm" (exceptional circumstances) before negating parental preference |
| Whether the correct legal standard (Tina K./Windham) was applied on modification | Christina: court must follow Tina K. sequence (determine fitness, forfeiture, then exceptional circumstances) | Soppes/State: court considered best interests and stability facts to deny modification | Court: did not follow Tina K.; remand for reconsideration under that framework |
Key Cases Cited
- State on behalf of Tina K. v. Adam B., 307 Neb. 1, 948 N.W.2d 182 (framework for applying parental preference when parent seeks custody from in loco parentis)
- Windham v. Kroll, 307 Neb. 947, 951 N.W.2d 744 (reiterating parental preference and its application in modification contexts)
- Windham v. Griffin, 295 Neb. 279, 887 N.W.2d 710 (explaining that parental preference may be overcome only by exceptional circumstances showing serious or likely harm)