Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
final court-ordered determination that [the biological father] was [the child’s]<br />
father.<br />
See Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 103 S. Ct. 2985, 77 L. Ed. 2d 614 (1983),<br />
regarding the constitutionally protected rights of unwed fathers under the 14 th<br />
Amendment’s Due Process Clause.<br />
“the Court draws a distinction between unmarried biological fathers who have<br />
developed a relationship with their child and fathers without such a relationship.” –<br />
citing Heart of Adoptions, Inc. v. J.A., 963 So. 2d 189, 204 (Fla. 2007)<br />
We conclude that for an adoption to proceed, the consent of the biological father<br />
who has established a familial relationship with his child is required unless, under §<br />
43-104(2), the party seeking adoption has established that the biological parent:<br />
(2) has relinquished the child for adoption by a written instrument, (b) has<br />
abandoned the child for at least six months next preceding the filing of the<br />
adoption petition, (c) has been deprived of his or her parental rights to such<br />
child by the order of any court of competent jurisdiction, or (d) is incapable of<br />
consenting.<br />
Smith v. Smith, 201 Neb. 21, 265 N.W.2d 855 (1978)<br />
Mother who secures consent to adoption from father cannot later seek child support<br />
from the biological father after she does not go through with the adoption.<br />
The securing of the consent of the father to an adoption by another of his child is<br />
such action which by its nature should terminate further liability for child support.<br />
But see…<br />
Williams v. Williams, 206 Neb. 630, 294 N.W.2d 357 (1980)<br />
We do not believe that the mere execution of a document consenting to the<br />
adoption of a child, standing alone, is sufficient to justify imposing the doctrine of<br />
equitable estoppel and denying to a parent with custody of a child the benefits of a<br />
previously entered order of a court. To the extent that our holding in Smith v.<br />
Smith, is to the contrary, it is modified.<br />
In Re Adoption of David C., 280 Neb. 719, 790 N.W.2d 205 (2010)<br />
The issue of abandonment in an adoption proceding must be established by clear<br />
and convincing evidence.<br />
The question of abandonment is largely one of intent to be determined in each case<br />
from all the facts and circumstances.<br />
“Willful abandonment has been defined as ‘a voluntary and intentional<br />
relinquishment of the custody of the child to another, with the intent to never again<br />
claim the rights of a parent or perform the duty of a parent; or, second, an intentional<br />
withholding from the child, without just cause or excuse, by the parent, of his<br />
presence, his care, his love and his protection, maintenance, and the opportunity for<br />
the display of filial affection . . . .’. . .” In re Application of S.R.S. and M.B.S., 225<br />
Neb. 759, 765, 408 N.W.2d 272, 276 (1987), quoting In re Adoption of Simonton,<br />
211 Neb. 777, 320 N.W.2d 449 (1982).<br />
The parental obligation “requires continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort<br />
to maintain communication and association with that child. Abandonment is not an<br />
ambulatory thing the legal effects of which a parent may dissipate at will by token<br />
efforts at reclaiming a discarded child.” – citing In re Adoption of Simonton, supra.<br />
- 7 -