- 486 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

PETERSON v. JACOBITZ

Cite as 309 Neb. 486

Austin Peterson, appellant, v. 

Jodi Jacobitz, now known as 

Jodi Ronhovde, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed June 18, 2021. No. S-20-097.

1. Judgments: Jurisdiction. A jurisdictional issue that does not involve a 

factual dispute presents a question of law.

2. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the juvenile court’s findings.

3. Statutes: Appeal and Error. To the extent an appeal calls for statutory 

interpretation or presents questions of law, an appellate court must reach 

an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the 

court below.

4. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. In construing a statute, a court must 

determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature 

as ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered in its 

plain, ordinary, and popular sense.

5. Statutes: Appeal and Error. The rules of statutory interpretation require 

an appellate court to give effect to the entire language of a statute, and 

to reconcile different provisions of the statutes so they are consistent, 

harmonious, and sensible.

6. ____: ____. An appellate court gives effect to all parts of a statute and 

avoids rejecting as superfluous or meaningless any word, clause, or 

sentence.

Appeal from the County Court for Buffalo County: John P. 

Rademacher, Judge. Affirmed.

Vikki S. Stamm and Sarah Hammond, of Stamm Romero & 

Associates, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

09/03/2021 01:09 AM CDT
- 487 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

PETERSON v. JACOBITZ

Cite as 309 Neb. 486

Jonathan R. Brandt and Carson K. Messersmith, Senior 

Certified Law Student, of Anderson, Klein, Brewster & Brandt, 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Heavican, C.J.

INTRODUCTION

Austin Peterson (Austin) filed a “Complaint to Establish 

Paternity and Objection to Proposed Adoption” in the Phelps 

County Court. Concluding that it lacked “jurisdiction” because 

the minor child was born in Buffalo County, the court transferred the complaint to Buffalo County Court.

The Buffalo County Court concluded that the Phelps County 

Court lacked jurisdiction to even transfer the case to Buffalo 

County and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Nebraska 

Court of Appeals reversed, and Jodi Jacobitz, now known 

as Jodi Ronhovde (Jodi), sought further review, which we 

granted. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

BACKGROUND

Jodi gave birth to Kooper J. in February 2013 in Kearney, 

Nebraska. Prior to Kooper’s birth, Jodi and Austin had 

engaged in a sexual relationship, but ceased dating before 

Kooper’s birth.

Jodi subsequently was married. Jodi joined her husband 

in petitioning the Phelps County Court, seeking a stepparent 

adoption. As a part of that action, Jodi’s counsel provided 

Austin with notice of the proposed adoption, as Jodi had identified him as Kooper’s biological father.

Austin responded by filing a “Complaint to Establish Paternity and Objection to Proposed Adoption” on October 21, 

2019, in the Phelps County Court. A hearing was held on 

December 17, at which time Austin motioned for a change of 

venue to Buffalo County “to comply with the jurisdictional 
- 488 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

PETERSON v. JACOBITZ

Cite as 309 Neb. 486

requirement.” The Phelps County Court agreed and found 

that “according to [the] Nebraska Revised Statutes the Phelps 

County Court does not have jurisdiction in this matter” and 

Austin’s “Motion to Transfer the case is granted.” The complaint was then transferred to Buffalo County.

Jodi filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that under Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 43-104.05 (Reissue 2016), the Phelps County Court 

never had jurisdiction and thus could not have transferred the 

case to Buffalo County. The Buffalo County Court agreed, stating that the “Court finds Phelps County Court lacked jurisdiction to transfer matter per Neb.Rev.Stat. Section 25-410. Thus 

the Buffalo County Court did not have jurisdiction.”

Austin appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed, 

reasoning that this case hinged on the difference between 

venue and jurisdiction:

Therefore, although [Austin] may have filed his 

“Complaint to Establish Paternity and Objection to 

Proposed Adoption” in the wrong venue, that did not 

deprive the county court for Phelps County of its exclusive original jurisdiction over adoption proceedings. See 

§ 24-517(11). And because the Phelps County Court did 

have jurisdiction over this matter, it likewise had the 

authority to transfer the case to a different county court 

with proper venue. We therefore conclude the county 

court for Buffalo County erred when it found that the 

Phelps County Court’s transfer order was void for lack 

of jurisdiction. 1

We granted Jodi’s petition for further review.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In her petition for further review, Jodi assigns that the Court 

of Appeals erred in finding that the Phelps County Court had 

subject matter jurisdiction over Austin’s complaint and accordingly could transfer the complaint to Buffalo County Court.

1 Peterson v. Jacobitz, 29 Neb. App. 486, 493, 955 N.W.2d 329, 335 (2021).
- 489 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

PETERSON v. JACOBITZ

Cite as 309 Neb. 486

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1-3] A jurisdictional issue that does not involve a factual 

dispute presents a question of law. 2 An appellate court reviews 

juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the juvenile court’s findings. 3 To the 

extent an appeal calls for statutory interpretation or presents 

questions of law, an appellate court must reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the 

court below. 4

ANALYSIS

This case requires us to interpret § 43-104.05 to determine 

whether the Phelps County Court had jurisdiction to transfer 

Austin’s action to Buffalo County.

[4-6] In construing a statute, a court must determine and 

give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature as 

ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered 

in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense. 5 The rules of statutory 

interpretation require an appellate court to give effect to the 

entire language of a statute, and to reconcile different provisions of the statutes so they are consistent, harmonious, and 

sensible. 6 An appellate court gives effect to all parts of a statute 

and avoids rejecting as superfluous or meaningless any word, 

clause, or sentence. 7

Section 43-104.05 provides in full:

(1) If a Notice of Objection to Adoption and Intent 

to Obtain Custody is timely filed with the biological 

2 In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437, 918 N.W.2d 834 (2018).

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 Anderson v. A & R Ag Spraying & Trucking, 306 Neb. 484, 946 N.W.2d 

435 (2020).

6 E.M. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 306 Neb. 1, 944 

N.W.2d 252 (2020).

7 Id.
- 490 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

PETERSON v. JACOBITZ

Cite as 309 Neb. 486

father registry pursuant to section 43-104.02, either the 

putative father, the mother, or her agent specifically designated in writing shall, within thirty days after the filing of such notice, file a petition for adjudication of 

the notice and a determination of whether the putative 

father’s consent to the proposed adoption is required. The 

petition shall be filed in the county court in the county 

where such child was born or, if a separate juvenile court 

already has jurisdiction over the custody of the child, in 

the county court of the county in which such separate 

juvenile court is located.

(2) If such a petition is not filed within thirty days after 

the filing of such notice and the mother of the child has 

executed a valid relinquishment and consent to the adoption within sixty days of the filing of such notice, the 

putative father’s consent to adoption of the child shall not 

be required, he is not entitled to any further notice of the 

adoption proceedings, and any alleged parental rights and 

responsibilities of the putative father shall not be recognized thereafter in any court.

(3) After the timely filing of such petition, the court 

shall set a trial date upon proper notice to the parties not 

less than twenty nor more than thirty days after the date 

of such filing. If the mother contests the putative father’s 

claim of paternity, the court shall order DNA testing to 

establish whether the putative father is the biological 

father. The court shall assess the costs of such testing 

between the parties in an equitable manner. Whether the 

putative father’s consent to the adoption is required shall 

be determined pursuant to section 43-104.22. The court 

shall appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the best 

interests of the child.

(4)(a) The county court of the county where the child 

was born or the separate juvenile court having jurisdiction over the custody of the child shall have jurisdiction 

over proceedings under this section from the date of 
- 491 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

PETERSON v. JACOBITZ

Cite as 309 Neb. 486

notice provided under section 43-104.12 or the last date 

of published notice under section 43-104.14, whichever 

notice is earlier, until thirty days after the conclusion 

of adoption proceedings concerning the child, including 

appeals . . . .

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, 

the court shall, upon the motion of any party, transfer 

the case to the district court for further proceedings on 

the matters of custody, visitation, and child support with 

respect to such child if (i) such court determines under 

section 43-104.22 that the consent of the putative father is 

required for adoption of the minor child and the putative 

father refuses such consent or (ii) the mother of the child, 

within thirty days after the conclusion of proceedings 

under this section, including appeals, has not executed 

a valid relinquishment and consent to the adoption. The 

court, upon its own motion, may retain the case for good 

cause shown.

The Court of Appeals focused on that part of § 43-104.05(1), 

which reads: “[The] petition shall be filed in the county court 

in the county where such child was born . . . .” It concluded 

that as a county court with exclusive jurisdiction over adoption 

matters under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-517 (Cum. Supp. 2020), the 

Phelps County Court had jurisdiction over the action but that, 

per § 43-104.05(1), Phelps County was not the appropriate 

venue and the case should be transferred to the county court for 

the county of the child’s birth, in this instance, Buffalo County. 

The Court of Appeals accordingly concluded that the Buffalo 

County Court erred in dismissing the complaint. The Court of 

Appeals does not address the impact of § 43-104.05(4)(a) on 

its reading of § 43-104.05(1).

In her petition for further review, Jodi focuses on that part 

of § 43-104.05(4)(a) providing that “[t]he county court of 

the county where the child was born or the separate juvenile 

court having jurisdiction over the custody of the child shall 

have jurisdiction over proceedings under this section . . . .” 
- 492 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

PETERSON v. JACOBITZ

Cite as 309 Neb. 486

Jodi argues that it is this language that provides for jurisdiction and that it clearly places sole jurisdiction with the county 

court located in the county of the child’s birth. She argues that 

the Court of Appeals’ decision wrongly reads the word “jurisdiction” in § 43-104.05(4)(a) to mean “venue.”

We recognize the tension between subsections (1) and 

(4)(a) of § 43-104.05. But we conclude that the purpose of 

§ 43-104.05(4)(a) is not to vest jurisdiction with a particular 

court—that power is conferred by § 24-517, which states that 

“[e]ach county court shall have the following jurisdiction: 

. . . (11) Exclusive original jurisdiction in matters of adoption, except if a separate juvenile court already has jurisdiction 

over the child to be adopted, concurrent original jurisdiction 

with the separate juvenile court.” Rather, § 43-104.05(4)(a) 

describes when and for how long a court having jurisdiction 

should exercise that jurisdiction. We reach this conclusion 

by noting that we must give effect to the entire language of 

a statute and reconcile such so that our results are consistent, 

harmonious, and sensible. With that in mind, we turn to the 

language of § 43-104.05.

Subsection (1) of § 43-104.05 provides that the complaint 

should be filed in the county court for the county where the 

child was born. For the reasons expressed by the Court of 

Appeals, we agree that this is venue language and that the 

jurisdiction of a county court over adoption matters is conferred by § 24-517. Thus, § 43-104.05(1) is all about how to 

commence an action.

Subsection (2) of § 43-104.05 details what happens if the 

petition in subsection (1) is not filed or such a filing is 

not timely—in such cases, a putative father’s consent is not 

required and his rights “shall not be recognized thereafter in 

any court.” Conversely, subsection (3) of § 43-104.05 details 

what to do once a petition is timely filed, specifically detailing the trial a putative father is entitled to so that the court can 

determine whether his consent to an adoption is required.
- 493 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

PETERSON v. JACOBITZ

Cite as 309 Neb. 486

Subsection (4) of § 43-104.05, though, is about timing and 

about how long the court in question should exercise authority 

over these proceedings—30 days after the conclusion of adoption proceedings. In sum, as noted above, subsection (4)(a) of 

§ 43-104.05 does not confer jurisdiction; rather, it sets forth 

for what length of time a court’s authority should be exercised. 

To read it in the terms proposed by Jodi would be inconsistent with, as well as superfluous to, the jurisdictional grant in 

§ 24-517 and the venue language of § 43-104.05(1).

The Court of Appeals concluded that the Phelps County 

Court had jurisdiction to transfer Austin’s complaint to Buffalo 

County because the challenged language in § 43-104.05(1) 

dealt with venue and not jurisdiction. This court holds that the 

language of § 43-104.05(4)(a) did not confer jurisdiction, but 

instead set forth the length of time for which the court should 

exercise its authority. There was no error in the Court of 

Appeals’ decision reversing the dismissal of Austin’s complaint 

by the Buffalo County Court.

CONCLUSION

The decision of the Court of Appeals, reversing the county 

court’s dismissal, is affirmed.

Affirmed.