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.
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 />
While an unwed mother is initially entitled to automatic custody of the child, the issue<br />
must ultimately be resolved on the basis of the fitness of the parents and the best<br />
interests of the child.<br />
Stuhr v. Stuhr, 240 Neb. 239, 481 N.W.2d 212 (1992)<br />
In the absence of a contrary statutory provision, in a child custody controversy<br />
between a biological or adoptive parent and one who is neither biological nor an<br />
adoptive parent of the child involved in the controversy, a fit biological or adoptive<br />
parent has a superior right to custody of the child.<br />
Watson v. Watson, 272 Neb. 647, 724 N.W.2d 24 (2006)<br />
This case reviews the UCCJEA and addresses when courts can, and cannot transfer issues<br />
of child custody and visitation to courts in other states. Generally, as long as one parent resides<br />
in <strong>Nebraska</strong> and maintains a relationship with the minor child, <strong>Nebraska</strong> courts maintain<br />
exclusive jurisdiction over the issues of custody and visitation, regardless of where the child<br />
lives. This is regardless of what courts in other states purport to do.<br />
- 50 -