Opinion ID: 1911343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: lack of consent

Text: The majority holds that the lack of Gomez' consent to the adoption, in accordance with § 43-104, constituted a lack of jurisdiction by the county court. The majority therefore holds that the judgment was void. Section 43-104(3) specifies who must consent to an adoption. The classes from whom consent must be received are three: both parents if living, the surviving parent of a child born in lawful wedlock, or, subject to sections 43-104.02 to 43-104.06, the mother of a child born out of wedlock.... (Emphasis supplied.) § 43-104(3). If the Legislature intended that biological fathers of children born out of wedlock must give consent to adoption, then the statute could simply state that consent must be given by both parents if living. Section 43-104(3) does clearly provide an alternative, however, and directs the reader to §§ 43-104.02 through 43-104.06. Substitute consent as provided in § 43-105 is not applicable in this case. In its holding, the majority refuses to consider §§ 43-104.02 through 43-104.06 as controlling in this case. After a careful reading of § 43-104(3), one must look to §§ 43-104.02 through 43-104.06 when consent is lacking from the biological unwed father. Section 43-104.02 provides in pertinent part: (1) Relinquishment or consent for the purpose of adoption given only by a mother of a child born out of wedlock pursuant to section 43-104 shall be sufficient to place the child for adoption and the rights of any alleged father shall not be recognized thereafter in any court unless the person claiming to be the father of the child has filed with the Department of Social Services ... within five days after the birth of such child, a notice of intent to claim paternity. In the instant case, Gomez did not file a notice of intent to claim paternity within 5 days of the births of Kassandra and Nicholas. However, we held in In re Application of S.R.S. and M.B.S., 225 Neb. 759, 408 N.W.2d 272 (1987), that § 43-104.02 was unconstitutional as applied to the facts therein. The unwed father in that case shared a familial relationship with his children. We held: [T]he 5-day filing requirement for unwed fathers [is] a legitimate means of attaining a worthy end, the rapid placement of newborns in families that could commit to raising them. However, the 5-day requirement secures no such result in cases such as this one, where the child is no longer a newborn and has already established strong ties with a father who has acknowledged and supported him. The effect of the requirement is to allow a mother to singlehandedly sever a relationship between father and child, no matter what the quality of that relationship is. 225 Neb. at 768-69, 408 N.W.2d at 278. Therefore, § 43-104.06 applies in the instant case, and consent, in conclusion, was not fatal to the jurisdiction of the county court.