Opinion ID: 2643624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: analysis

Text: [3] The State’s sole argument on appeal is that the juvenile court erred in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s power to hear and determine a case in the general class or category to which the proceedings in question belong and to deal with the general subject involved in the action or proceeding before the court and the particular question which it assumes to determine.3 Abigael asserted, and the juvenile court found, that the court lacked authority to hear and determine whether Violet was a juvenile within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(a). 1 See In re Interest of Trey H., 281 Neb. 760, 798 N.W.2d 607 (2011). 2 See id. 3 Id. Nebraska Advance Sheets IN RE INTEREST OF VIOLET T. 953 Cite as 286 Neb. 949 [4,5] As a statutorily created court of limited and special jurisdiction, a juvenile court has only such authority as has been conferred on it by statute.4 The Nebraska Juvenile Code should, however, be liberally construed.5 [6] Section 43-247(3) states that the juvenile court in each county shall have jurisdiction over “[a]ny juvenile . . . who lacks proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of his or her parent, guardian, or custodian.” We have held that “to obtain jurisdiction over a juvenile, the court’s only concern is whether the conditions in which the juvenile presently finds himself or herself fit within the asserted subsection of § 43-247.”6 Section 43-247 mentions neither the residence of a parent nor the residence of a child. [7] The State argues that Violet’s absence from Nebraska was temporary and, further, that the domicile of a child is determined by the residence of the child’s custodian. But we have stated: The jurisdiction of a state to regulate the custody of an infant found within its territory does not depend upon the domicile of the parents. It has its origin in the protection that is due to the incompetent or helpless. As we said in In re Application of Reed [152 Neb. 819, 43 N.W.2d 161 (1950)]: “The jurisdiction of a state to regulate the custody of infants found within its territory does not depend upon the domicile of the child, but it arises out of the power that every sovereignty possesses as parens patriae to every child within its borders to determine its status and the custody that will best meet its needs and wants, and residence within the state suffices even though the domicile may be in another jurisdiction.”7 4 In re Interest of Jorge O., 280 Neb. 411, 786 N.W.2d 343 (2010). 5 See In re Interest of Gabriela H., 280 Neb. 284, 785 N.W.2d 843 (2010). 6 In re Interest of Angelica L. & Daniel L., 277 Neb. 984, 1004-05, 767 N.W.2d 74, 91 (2009). 7 Jones v. State, 175 Neb. 711, 717, 123 N.W.2d 633, 637 (1963) (emphasis supplied). Nebraska Advance Sheets 954 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS In the case at hand, Violet was born in Nebraska, but was no longer within this state’s borders at the time the petition was filed. Although the State suggests Violet was in Iowa temporarily, the facts of this case as established by the record indicate that apart from the days just following her birth, Violet has never lived anywhere else but in Iowa. As is established by this record, there is no Nebraska home to which Violet might return. Additionally, we note that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-274(1) (Reissue 2008) authorizes a county attorney “having knowledge of a juvenile in his or her county” who appears to be within § 43-247 to file a petition in “the court having j ­urisdiction in the matter.” In this case, however, Violet was not in Douglas County, even temporarily, at the time the petition was filed. We conclude the parens patriae power of the State does not provide a basis for finding jurisdiction in this case. We also find no jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).8 The UCCJEA provides that a court has jurisdiction to make a custody determination if: (1) [T]his state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; (2) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subdivision (a)(1) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under section 43-1244 or 43-1245, and: (A) the child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and 8 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1226 et seq. (Reissue 2008 & Cum. Supp. 2012). Nebraska Advance Sheets IN RE INTEREST OF VIOLET T. 955 Cite as 286 Neb. 949 (B) substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships; (3) all courts having jurisdiction under subdivision (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under 43-1244 or 43-1245; or (4) no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section.9 “Home state” is defined as the state in which a child has lived with a parent or person acting as parent for at least 6 consecutive months, or from birth, before the commencement of the proceeding.10 Because, apart from a few days just following her birth, Violet has never lived in Nebraska, and Nebraska is not Violet’s home state under the UCCJEA. This is true despite the fact that Violet was born in Nebraska.11 Therefore, in the case at hand, none of the provisions of the UCCJEA provide a statutory basis for jurisdiction. Finally, the State cites to In re Interest of Breana M.12 But contrary to the arguments of the State, that case provides us with no basis for jurisdiction in this matter. In re Interest of Breana M. involves the exercise of jurisdiction across Nebraska counties but is wholly inapplicable here, where the issue involves the jurisdiction of a child located in a state other than Nebraska.