State on behalf of Daphnie F. v. Christina C.
310 Neb. 638
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Daphnie (born 2014) was placed with her paternal grandparents, Mary and Tim Soppe, after Colorado child-protection proceedings; a Colorado order (Jan. 17, 2017) granted the Soppes permanent legal and physical custody.
- Christina (biological mother) moved to Nebraska; Nebraska registered the Colorado custody order and exercised jurisdiction under the UCCJEA; Nebraska also entered a child-support order in 2019 payable to Mary.
- Christina filed to modify custody in Washington County, Neb. (Feb. 2020). Trial occurred Oct. 1, 2020; the district court heard evidence about Christina’s prior criminal probation, substance-use history (positive tests in 2018), subsequent treatment, and partial sobriety.
- By agreement Christina had roughly 50% parenting time before trial; the Soppes testified they provided a stable home and had concerns about recent instances of Christina’s drinking and behavior affecting the child.
- The district court found the Soppes stood in loco parentis, concluded parental preference was overcome (citing Christina’s deficient parenting and the child’s stable placement with the Soppes), denied Christina’s modification request, and awarded limited parenting time conditioned on sobriety.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the district court failed to apply the framework set forth in State on behalf of Tina K. v. Adam B. for parent-vs-in-loco-parentis custody modifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Christina) | Defendant's Argument (Soppes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Proper legal standard for modifying custody when parent seeks custody from in loco parentis | Apply parental-preference framework from State on behalf of Tina K.; determine parental fitness first | District court may decide custody based on best interests and stability of existing placement | Court: District court failed to apply Tina K. framework; reversal and remand for reconsideration under that standard |
| 2. Whether parental preference was rebutted (exceptional circumstances) | Christina: she is a fit parent and presumption favors placement with parent | Soppes: exceptional circumstances exist given Christina’s substance history and Colorado order granting permanent custody to Soppes | Court: District court found preference negated but did not make required findings under Tina K.; findings insufficient—remand |
| 3. Whether a material change in circumstances supported modification | Christina: her recovery and relocation/support justify reconsideration of custody | Soppes: no material change that outweighs child’s established placement and stability | Court: District court did not properly analyze whether in loco parentis relationship changed or whether material change exists under the correct framework; remand |
| 4. Reliance on best-interest findings without first resolving parental-preference/finesse issues | Christina: must first find parent fit or forfeiture; then, only if fit, require exceptional circumstances to overcome preference | Soppes: best interests and child stability justify retaining custody | Court: Best-interest analysis cannot substitute for the Tina K. sequence; remanded for proper findings and application |
Key Cases Cited
- State on behalf of Tina K. v. Adam B., 307 Neb. 1, 948 N.W.2d 182 (2020) (establishes parental-preference framework and requires fitness inquiry and proof of exceptional circumstances to overcome parental preference in parent vs in loco parentis disputes)
- Windham v. Kroll, 307 Neb. 947, 951 N.W.2d 744 (2020) (reiterates parental-preference principles and their application in modification proceedings)
- Windham v. Griffin, 295 Neb. 279, 887 N.W.2d 710 (2016) (explains that parental-preference presumption may be defeated only in exceptional cases for the child’s best interests)