Opinion ID: 1269966
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: civil conspiracy claim against kilmer, the blacks, whitmire, washburn, and erickson & sederstrom

Text: Ashby asserts that Kilmer, the Blacks, Whitmire, Washburn, and Erickson & Sederstrom engaged in a conspiracy to intentionally interfere and deprive Ashby of his right to have custody of M.A. and to establish a parental relationship with him. We do not include Whitmire in our discussion because, as addressed below, the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. A civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons acting in concert to accomplish an unlawful or oppressive object, or a lawful object by unlawful or oppressive means. [44] A party does not have to prove a civil conspiracy by direct evidence of the acts charged. It may be proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances which vary according to the purpose to be accomplished. [45] It is, however, necessary to prove the existence of at least an implied agreement to establish conspiracy. [46] Furthermore, a civil conspiracy is only actionable if the alleged conspirators actually committed some underlying misconduct. [47] And a conspiracy is not a separate and independent tort in itself; rather, it depends upon the existence of an underlying tort. [48] So without such underlying tort, there can be no cause of action for a conspiracy to commit the tort. [49] Applying these principles, we turn to Ashby's allegations regarding the underlying tortintentional interference with his parental rights. Ashby contends that Nebraska recognizes a cause of action for the intentional interference with a parent's right to custody. Specifically, that the defendants could be held liable for entering into a conspiracy with the goal of interfering with Ashby's right to establish a relationship with, and custody of, his child. [50] We have held that parents may assert a cause of action against a third party who wrongfully deprives them of their parental rights. [51] In Tavlinsky v. Ringling Bros. Circus , [52] the defendants operated a traveling circus that employed the plaintiffs' 15-year-old son without their permission. The defendants' knowledge of the son's minor status and failure to obtain the parents' consent for employing him were sufficient to establish their liability. But we remanded the cause to determine if the parents had ratified the employment, and thereby waived the claim, by accepting money from the son's employment with the defendants. Also, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-316 (Reissue 2008) provides a criminal sanction for interfering with a legal guardian's custody of a minor child. Similarly, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 700 [53] recognizes that a parent legally entitled to a child's custody may recover against a person who deprives him or her of custody. Under both Tavlinsky and § 700 of the Restatement, however, the parent seeking relief must show that he or she is legally entitled to custody. However, remember that Ashby was not entitled to custody before April 21, 2004, when he received a custody order from the Madison County Court. But Ashby's allegations focus on the defendants' actions before he obtained the custody order. And after April 21, the record shows that the Blacks successfully exercised their right to appeal. [54] Ashby was a party to the appeal, but because Ashby's Nebraska custody order did not comply with the requirements of Alabama's or Nebraska's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [55] or the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980, [56] the Supreme Court of Alabama refused to enforce the Nebraska custody order. [57] Contrary to Ashby's allegations, the defendants, in exercising their lawful right to appeal, were not wrongfully depriving Ashby of custody. And his allegations do not support a claim that the defendants' actions after April 21 showed an implied agreement to deprive him of his parental rights. In sum, the defendants did not wrongfully interfere with Ashby's ability to establish and assert his parental rights. Ashby's allegations are more accurately characterized as attempting to state a claim for interference with his right to establish paternity and obtain custody. Based on the language of § 700, [58] however, we do not believe that a biological father can assert a claim for intentional interference with his parental rights before gaining a custody order. [59] Because Ashby cannot allege that he was legally entitled to custody at the time of the alleged interference, he cannot allege facts showing this required element of intentional interference with a parental relationship. And because he cannot allege facts that would satisfy the required elements of the tort, he cannot establish a conspiracy claim based upon that tort. [60] Moreover, as of March 30, 2004, Ashby was actively litigating in Alabama whether his custody order was, in fact, valid and enforceable. [61] Thus, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Kilmer, the Blacks, Washburn, and Erickson & Sederstrom.