Opinion ID: 4518065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: This appeal generally presents the question of whether the district court had the authority to make the findings of fact requested by Sabino and, if so, whether there was sufficient evidence for the court to make those findings. Each issue will be addressed in turn. District Court’s Authority. [6] The district court in this case had the authority to make the findings sought by Sabino. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1238(b) (Cum. Supp. 2018) provides: In addition to having jurisdiction to make judicial determinations about the custody and care of the child, a court of this state with exclusive jurisdiction under subsection (a) of this section [setting forth when a court has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination] has jurisdiction and authority to make factual findings regarding (1) the abuse, abandonment, or neglect of the child, (2) the nonviability of reunification with at least one of the child’s parents due to such abuse, abandonment, neglect, or a similar basis under state law, and (3) whether it would be in the best interests of such child to be removed from the United States to a foreign country, including the child’s country of origin or last habitual residence. If there is sufficient evidence to support such factual findings, the court shall issue an order containing such findings when requested by one of the parties or upon the court’s own motion. 5 Id. 6 Id. - 182 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports SABINO v. OZUNA Cite as 305 Neb. 176 Although the amendments to § 43-1238 were not effective until July 19, 2018, which was several months after the order was issued in this case, we recently held in In re Guardianship of Carlos D.7 that the change made to § 43-1238(b) was procedural and thus applied to pending cases. The language of § 43-1238 provides that if a court has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination, it also has the jurisdiction and authority to make the factual findings relevant to SIJ status. In this case, the record shows that the child’s home state for purposes of § 43-1238(a) was Nebraska, and, as such, the court had the jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination and to make the requested findings. Sufficient Evidence. Section 43-1238 provides that “[i]f there is sufficient evidence to support such factual findings, the court shall issue an order containing such findings when requested by one of the parties or upon the court’s own motion.” [7,8] Having concluded that the court has the authority to make these findings, we turn to an examination of what these factfinding courts should consider when doing so. The role of state courts in the SIJ status determination is to make the findings of fact necessary to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service’s legal determination of the immigrant child’s entitlement to SIJ status.8 Federal law affirms the institutional competence of state courts as the appropriate forum for child welfare determinations regarding abuse, neglect, and abandonment, as well as a child’s best interests.9 But it is not the role of the state court to make a determination as to whether 7 In re Guardianship of Carlos D., supra note 2. 8 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J)(iii) (Reissue 2018). 9 See, Guardianship of Penate, 477 Mass. 268, 76 N.E.3d 960 (2017); H.S.P. v. J.K., 223 N.J. 196, 121 A.3d 849 (2015); Kitoko v. Salomao, 215 A.3d 698 (Vt. 2019); In re Y.M., 207 Cal. App. 4th 892, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 54 (2012); Simbaina v. Bunay, 221 Md. App. 440, 109 A.3d 191 (2015). - 183 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports SABINO v. OZUNA Cite as 305 Neb. 176 a child will ultimately be eligible for SIJ status; that is a determination reserved for the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service and the federal government.10 [9,10] That a court is requested to make findings for purposes of SIJ status does not mean that it must make findings favorable to the party seeking them.11 Courts asked to make these findings may conclude that there was insufficient evidence or that the evidence was not credible.12 Federal law provides: Applications for asylum and other forms of relief from removal in which an unaccompanied alien child is the principal applicant shall be governed by regulations which take into account the specialized needs of unaccompanied alien children and which address both procedural and substantive aspects of handling unaccompanied alien children’s cases.13 Courts in other jurisdictions have interpreted this language as a caution to courts to not place insurmountable evidentiary burdens on SIJ petitioners, because those seeking that status will have limited abilities to corroborate testimony with additional evidence.14 In this case, the district court questioned both the record before it and its authority, before concluding that it was not “even within [its] purview” to make the findings sought by Sabino. We conclude that although the court can and should entertain a request for findings, the court’s powers as a fact 10 See, J.U. v. J.C.P.C., 176 A.3d 136 (D.C. 2018); Romero v. Perez, 463 Md. 182, 205 A.3d 903 (2019); Guardianship of Penate, supra note 9; Kitoko v. Salomao, supra note 9. 11 See, J.U. v. J.C.P.C., supra note 10; Romero v. Perez, supra note 10; Kitoko v. Salomao, supra note 9; In re J.J.X.C., 318 Ga. App. 420, 734 S.E.2d 120 (2012). 12 See id. 13 8 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(8) (2018). 14 See, J.U. v. J.C.P.C., supra note 10; Romero v. Perez, supra note 10; Kitoko v. Salomao, supra note 9. - 184 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports SABINO v. OZUNA Cite as 305 Neb. 176 finder to assess the credibility of a witness or judge the sufficiency of evidence remain in effect. But nothing in this opinion should be read to suggest what findings the court should make on remand. Because in this case the district court concluded that it lacked the authority to make the requested findings, we accordingly reverse the decision of the district court and remand the cause for further proceedings.