Opinion ID: 1598126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: writ of habeas corpus and visitation

Text: We have described the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy which is constitutionally available in a proceeding to challenge and test the legality of a person's detention, imprisonment, or custodial deprivation of liberty, including the custody and best interests of a minor when in the physical custody of one not acquiring such under a court order or decree. Uhing v. Uhing, 241 Neb. 368, 488 N.W.2d 366 (1992). Habeas corpus is an appropriate action to test the legality of custody and best interests of a minor, including the rights of fathers of children born out of wedlock. Shoecraft v. Catholic Social Servs. Bureau, 222 Neb. 574, 385 N.W.2d 448 (1986). Habeas corpus is a special proceeding, civil in character, which provides a summary remedy open to persons illegally detained. Neudeck v. Buettow, 166 Neb. 649, 90 N.W.2d 254 (1958). The remedy is not demandable as a matter of course; legal cause must be shown in order to entitle a petitioner to the remedy of habeas corpus. Nicholson v. Sigler, 183 Neb. 24, 157 N.W.2d 872 (1968), cert. denied 393 U.S. 876, 89 S.Ct. 174, 21 L.Ed.2d 148. Moreover, a writ of habeas corpus ordinarily will not be granted where another adequate remedy exists. In re Application of Dunn, 150 Neb. 669, 35 N.W.2d 673 (1949). Here, the petition alleges that Flora is the natural father and Escudero is the natural mother and custodial parent of the minor child. The petition further alleges that no judicial determination of the custodial rights had been made, that the child was living with Escudero, and that Escudero refused to allow Flora reasonable access to visitation or to share in the custody or control of the child. The petition's prayer requested that upon hearing, the court determine that Eric Flora should have definite visitation rights with the child and that reasonable child support be determined by the court along with such other relief as may be just and equitable. Flora did not request custody in his prayer for relief. Further, Flora's prayer for equitable relief plays no role in this legal proceeding. See, Synacek v. Omaha Cold Storage Terminals, 247 Neb. 244, 526 N.W.2d 91 (1995); Doak v. Milbauer, 216 Neb. 331, 343 N.W.2d 751 (1984) (prayer for equitable relief has no place or role in law action). Thus, while the petition notes that the mother refuses to share custody or control of the child, it does not challenge the mother's physical custody of the child. Flora's primary purpose, as stated in the petition, is to obtain visitation rights rather than custody. In child custody cases, a writ of habeas corpus is proper to test the legality of custody although in a case of a writ sued out for the detention of a child, the law is more concerned about the best interests of the child than the illegality of the detention. Christopherson v. Christopherson, 177 Neb. 414, 129 N.W.2d 113 (1964). Since Flora's petition did not contest the legality of the mother's custody of the child, Flora was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. We reverse, and remand the cause with directions to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS.