04.04.2014 Views

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

constitutional dimensions of the relationship between parent and child require<br />

termination of the guardianship and reunification with the parent.<br />

Parental unfitness means a personal deficiency or incapacity which has prevented,<br />

or will probably prevent, performance of a reasonable parental obligation in child<br />

rearing or which has caused, or probably will result in, detriment to a child’s wellbeing.<br />

… evidence of unfitness should be focused upon a parent’s ability to care for<br />

a child, and not any other moral failings a parent may have.<br />

“[i]f the evidence of unfitness is insufficient to justify termination of parental rights in<br />

an action maintained under the <strong>Nebraska</strong> Juvenile Code,” then “similarly deficient<br />

evidence of parental unfitness” would prevent a court from granting child custody “to<br />

one who is a stranger to the parent-child relationship.”<br />

Nielsen v. Nielsen, 207 Neb. 141, 296 N.W.2d 483 (1980)<br />

The right of a parent to the custody of his minor child is not lightly to be set aside in<br />

favor of more distant relatives or unrelated parties, and the courts may not deprive a<br />

parent of such custody unless he is shown to be unfit or to have forfeited his<br />

superior right to such custody.<br />

Peterson v. Peterson, 224 Neb. 557, 399 N.W.2d 792 (1987)<br />

The district court may maintain legal custody of minor children, while awarding<br />

physical custody to a parent or other party.<br />

Raney v. Blecha, 258 Neb. 731, 605 N.W.2d 449 (2000)<br />

Grandparents’ existing visitation rights are not automatically terminated by an<br />

adoption, but can be modified upon a showing of cause with the child’s best interests<br />

at issue.<br />

State on behalf of Combs v. O’Neal, 11 Neb. App. 890, 662 N.W.2d 231 (2003)<br />

The “parental preference doctrine” holds that in a child custody controversy<br />

between a biological parent and one who is neither a biological nor an adoptive<br />

parent, the biological parent has a superior right to custody of the child. In re<br />

Stephanie H. et al., 10 Neb. App. 908, 639 N.W.2d 668 (2002), citing In re Interest<br />

of Amber G. et al., 250 Neb. 973, 554 N.W.2d 142 (1996).<br />

A court may not properly deprive a biological or adoptive parent of the custody of the<br />

minor child unless it is affirmatively shown that such parent is unfit to perform the<br />

duties imposed by the relationship or has forfeited that right<br />

Parental forfeiture means that parental rights “‘may be forfeited by substantial,<br />

continuous, and repeated neglect of a child and a failure to discharge the duties of<br />

parental care and protection.’” In re Interest of Eric O. & Shane O., 9 Neb. App.<br />

676, 685, 617 N.W.2d 824, 832 (2000).<br />

The <strong>Nebraska</strong> Supreme Court has stated that a person standing in loco parentis to a<br />

child is one who has put himself or herself in the situation of a lawful parent by<br />

assuming the obligations incident to the parental relationship, without going through<br />

the formalities necessary to a legal adoption, and the rights, duties, and liabilities of<br />

such person are the same as those of the lawful parent. In re Interest of Destiny<br />

S., 263 Neb. 255, 639 N.W.2d 400 (2002), citing Weinand v. Weinand, 260 Neb.<br />

146, 616 N.W.2d 1 (2000).<br />

State o/b/o Pathammavong v. Pathammavong, 268 Neb. 1, 679 N.W.2d 749 (2004)<br />

- 49 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!