State on behalf of Daphnie F. v. Christina C., 310 Neb. 638

Child (Daphnie) born 2014; removed from parents and placed with paternal grandparents (the Soppes) in July 2016.
Colorado court entered an order (Jan 2017) awarding "permanent legal and physical custody" to the Soppes.
Christina (biological mother) moved to Nebraska, and the Colorado order was registered in Washington County; Nebraska court jurisdiction found under UCCJEA.
Christina filed to modify custody (Feb 2020); trial held Oct 1, 2020, focused on Christina’s past substance abuse, probation, positive drug tests in 2018, treatment history, and claimed current sobriety and ~50% parenting time by agreement.
District court found the Soppes stand in loco parentis, concluded parental preference was overcome based on prior Colorado findings and concerns about Christina’s stability, kept custody with the Soppes, and awarded limited, sobriety-conditioned visitation to Christina.
Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the district court did not apply the analytical framework set out in State on behalf of Tina K. v. Adam B. for parent vs. in loco parentis modification disputes; ordered reconsideration under that standard.

Issue	Christina's Argument	Soppes' Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly denied Christina’s modification request	Christina: as fit biological mother, she has superior right to custody; trial court failed to apply Tina K. framework	Soppes: retained custody is in child’s best interest given stability and prior Colorado order; parental preference overcome	Reversed; remanded — trial court did not apply Tina K. standard and thus abused discretion
Whether parental preference was rebutted / exceptional circumstances shown	Christina: no proof she is unfit or that exceptional circumstances (serious physical or psychological harm) exist	Soppes: Colorado order and Christina’s substance history demonstrate reason to negate parental preference	Court: trial court’s findings insufficient under Tina K.; must expressly determine fitness, forfeiture, and whether exceptional circumstances exist; remand for reconsideration
Whether proper modification analysis (material change / change in in loco parentis relationship) was applied	Christina: district court failed to assess whether in loco parentis relationship changed or whether a material change warranted modification	Soppes: stability and ongoing bonding justify keeping custody without finding material change	Court: trial court did not follow Windham/Tina K. guidance on considering change in in loco parentis relationship and material-change inquiry; remand

State on behalf of Tina K. v. Adam B., 307 Neb. 1, 948 N.W.2d 182 (establishes parental-preference framework and requires proof of serious physical/psychological harm or substantial likelihood thereof to overcome a fit parent’s superior right)
Windham v. Kroll, 307 Neb. 947, 951 N.W.2d 744 (reiterates that parental preference applies in modification disputes and that changes in an in loco parentis relationship are relevant to material-change and best-interests analyses)
Windham v. Griffin, 295 Neb. 279, 887 N.W.2d 710 (discusses preference for custody by a fit biological or adoptive parent)