State on behalf of Daphnie F. v. Christina C.
310 Neb. 638
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Child (born 2014) was placed with paternal grandparents Mary and Tim Soppe in July 2016; a Colorado court in January 2017 awarded the Soppes "permanent, legal and physical custody."
- Christina (biological mother) moved to Nebraska; Colorado custody order was registered in Washington County and Nebraska courts found jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Christina filed to modify custody in February 2020; trial occurred October 1, 2020.
- Evidence focused on Christina's prior substance abuse and criminal probation (positive drug tests in 2018) but also on her claimed sobriety, ongoing mental‑health medication, employment, and approximately 50% parenting time by agreement.
- The district court found the Soppes stood in loco parentis, concluded parental preference had been overcome because of the Colorado order and the Soppes' stable care, and denied Christina's modification request while granting limited parenting time conditioned on sobriety.
- 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., which governs modification disputes between a parent and an in loco parentis custodian (requiring findings on parental fitness/forfeiture and, if necessary, exceptional circumstances).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Christina) | Defendant's Argument (Soppes / District Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parental preference governs a modification where a parent seeks custody from in loco parentis custodians | Christina is a fit biological parent with a superior right to custody unless proven unfit or forfeited | Prior Colorado permanency order and the Soppes' stable care rebut parental preference; best interests favor keeping child with Soppes | Court held trial court failed to apply Tina K. framework (must first decide fitness/forfeiture and then whether exceptional circumstances exist); reversed and remanded |
| Whether the district court correctly denied modification on the record (material change / best interests) | Christina pointed to sobriety progress, substantial parenting time, stable housing and treatment engagement | The Soppes pointed to Christina's history of substance abuse, recent conduct, and potential harm to the child; district court found best interests supported remaining with Soppes | Appellate court did not resolve merits; remanded because the court’s findings did not follow the Tina K. standard and were therefore insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State on behalf of Tina K. v. Adam B., 307 Neb. 1 (Neb. 2020) (establishes framework for modification disputes between biological/adoptive parents and in loco parentis custodians; parental preference, fitness, and exceptional‑circumstances analysis)
- Windham v. Kroll, 307 Neb. 947 (Neb. 2020) (reiterates Tina K. principles and applies parental preference in modification context)
- Windham v. Griffin, 295 Neb. 279 (Neb. 2016) (discusses parental preference and circumstances that may defeat a fit parent's superior right to custody)