Court Opinion

ID: 9658644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:07:14.506479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:57.431283
License: Public Domain

Irwin, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority that the trial court correctly applied the parental preference doctrine in this case. It is not clear that the trial court correctly applied the doctrine; nor does the evidence support a finding that Adrian forfeited his parental rights. Additionally, the fact that Ronetta may or may not have been in loco parentis to Brittanae is not appropriately considered in determining forfeiture.
1. District Court Order
First, as noted above, it is not clear that the trial court correctly applied the parental preference doctrine. Not only did the district court erroneously conclude that Ronetta is not an “unrelated” third party for the purpose of this discussion, but the district court was also less than clear in concluding that there was, in fact, a forfeiture of parental rights by Adrian.
In the order denying Adrian’s application for custody, the district court recognized the principal tenets of the parental preference doctrine as iterated in this court’s opinion in In re Interest of Eric O. & Shane O., 9 Neb. App. 676, 617 N.W.2d 824 (2000). *899Specifically, the district court recognized that ‘“Nebraska law creates a “presumption” in favor of child custody with a biological parent as against an unrelated third party.’ ” See id. The district court then specifically found that “Ronetta is the grandmother of Brittanae, not an ‘unrelated third party.’ ” (Emphasis in original.)
In Blecha v. Blecha, 257 Neb. 543, 599 N.W.2d 829 (1999), the Nebraska Supreme Court was confronted with a case in which a minor child sought to be placed in the custody of his maternal grandmother and aunt. In Blecha, the court applied the parental preference doctrine to conclude that the biological father’s natural right to the custody of his child trumped the interest of “strangers to the parent-child relationship.” 257 Neb. at 547, 599 N.W.2d at 832. In so doing, the court implicitly recognized that the maternal grandmother and aunt were “unrelated” persons in the context of the parental preference doctrine because, despite the fact that they were extended family members, they were not biological parents of the child. See, also, Mair v. James, No. A-00-016, 2001 WL 537062 (Neb. App. May 22, 2001) (not designated for permanent publication) (Nebraska Court of Appeals, citing Blecha v. Blecha, supra, explicitly held that anyone other than natural parent is considered unrelated, even if he or she is actually extended family member).
The district court was wrong to conclude that Ronetta is not an unrelated third party for the purpose of applying the parental preference doctrine. Because the district court made this incorrect conclusion prior to applying the parental preference doctrine, it is not clear that the trial court actually decided this case on the basis of the parental preference doctrine.
The majority opinion indicates that the district court found that Adrian had forfeited his parental rights by failing to pay child support for Brittanae before she was 9 years old. More specifically, the district court actually stated that “[tjhere has been, to some extent, ‘parental forfeiture’ by Adrian.” (Emphasis supplied.) In light of the court’s erroneous conclusion that Ronetta was not an unrelated third party, which erroneous conclusion happened to be the sentence immediately preceding the district court’s indication of “some extent” of forfeiture, it is less than clear that the district court actually based the decision in this case on an application of the parental preference doctrine.
*900The district court went to some length to quote propositions of law concerning the best interests of the child in custody determinations. After erroneously concluding that Ronetta is not an unrelated third party and indicating that there had been some extent of parental forfeiture, the district court concluded that Brittanae’s best interests would be served by her remaining in Ronetta’s custody. It is less than clear that the district court actually found the parental preference doctrine applicable and that Ronetta was entitled to custody because Adrian had forfeited his parental rights.
2. Parental Preference Doctrine
Even assuming that the district court did apply the parental preference doctrine in resolving this custody dispute, the record does not contain adequate evidence to rise to the level necessary to conclude that Adrian has forfeited his parental rights. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that Adrian has engaged in substantial, continuous, and repeated neglect of or indifference to Brittanae’s welfare over a long period of time.
In Nielsen v. Nielsen, 207 Neb. 141, 296 N.W.2d 483 (1980), the Nebraska Supreme Court annunciated that prior rulings to the contrary notwithstanding, courts may not properly deprive a parent of the custody of a minor child unless it is affirmatively shown that such parent is unfit to perform the duties imposed by the relationship or has forfeited that right. The Supreme Court also noted that the right of a parent to the custody of his minor child is not lightly to be set aside in favor of more distant relatives. Id.
Since the opinion in Nielsen v. Nielsen, supra, a finding of forfeiture of parental rights has proven to be a high hurdle to overcome. See, Blecha v. Blecha, 257 Neb. 543, 599 N.W.2d 829 (1999); Mair v. James, No. A-00-016, 2001 WL 537062 (Neb. App. May 22,2001) (not designated for permanent publication); In re Interest of Eric O. & Shane O., 9 Neb. App. 676, 617 N.W.2d 824 (2000). Compare Nye v. Nye, 213 Neb. 364, 329 N.W.2d 346 (1983). The above cases all include facts that are, in many respects, comparable to those of the present case.
In In re Interest of Eric O. & Shane O., supra, we found no forfeiture of parental rights despite the facts that the minor children *901had resided with a third party for nearly 6 years, several with the express consent of the natural father, and that the natural father had entered a stipulation to establish a legal guardianship over the children by the third party. In Mair v. James, supra, we found no forfeiture despite the facts that the minor child lived with a third party for a period of approximately 7 years, the father visited the child only once in the 2 years prior to his seeking custody, and the father became more than $4,000 delinquent in child support even after support was ordered by the court. We recognized that while the father did not completely perform his parental obligations and could have performed more consistently, the evidence did not rise to the level required to find forfeiture.
Parental forfeiture means that a parent may forfeit his or her parental rights by substantial, continuous, and repeated neglect of a child and failure to discharge the duties of parental care and protection. In re Interest of Eric O. & Shane O., supra. Further, forfeiture may be effected by a parent’s indifference to a child’s welfare over a long period of time. Id. There is simply no evidence in this record of long-term “ ‘careless indifference,’ ” id. at 686, 617 N.W.2d at 832, to Brittanae.
Although Adrian consented to Brittanae’s living with Ronetta for much of her life prior to these proceedings, he did not substantially, continually, or repeatedly neglect Brittanae or demonstrate indifference to her welfare. Rather, the record indicates that Adrian has had some presence in Brittanae’s life since her birth. Adrian testified that he had some contact with Brittanae, either by telephone or in person, on at least a monthly basis since her birth. Ronetta generally confirmed this testimony, indicating that a period of 3 months would have been the longest period of time without contact from Adrian during Brittanae’s life. Adrian testified that although he did not pay child support until the paternity decree was entered, he told Ronetta that he would take care of providing items that Ronetta informed him Brittanae needed. Ronetta acknowledged that Adrian bought Brittanae clothes for Christmas and birthdays, as well as at the beginning of the school year. Additionally, there is no indication that Adrian has failed to remain current with his child support obligation in the 6 years after the paternity decree was entered or that he failed to judiciously exercise his visitation rights.
*902It is not clear how the above record indicates substantial, continuous, and repeated neglect of or long-term indifference to Brittanae’s welfare. Although it may well be true that Adrian has occupied the role of a noncustodial parent while Ronetta has performed the day-to-day tasks of raising Brittanae, Adrian has had continuous involvement with Brittanae during her entire life, including financial support for several years prior to these proceedings.
3. In Loco Parentis
The majority opinion focuses on the facts that Ronetta and Brittanae share a significant bond and that Ronetta has assumed a position in loco parentis to Brittanae. While this may be true, there is no authority for allowing such a position to supplant the parental preference doctrine.
This specific issue was raised and addressed in Mair v. James, No. A-00-016, 2001 WL 537062 (Neb. App. May 22, 2001) (not designated for permanent publication). Although we concluded in that case that the record did not support a finding of in loco parentis, we further concluded that even if the third party was in loco parentis to the child, the parties had cited no authority “holding that a fit natural parent who has not forfeited his or her superior right to custody can by supplanted by one who stands in loco parentis.” Id. at *3. Similarly, there is no authority for reaching such a conclusion in the present case.
4. Resolution
The circumstances of the present case are extremely difficult. On the one hand is Adrian, a biological parent who seeks to have custody of his child over an unrelated third party. Adrian has not performed his parental responsibilities as well as he could have, but he has maintained a consistent and steady relationship, both physical and financial, with Brittanae. On the other hand is Brittanae, a teenage girl who has really only ever known Ronetta as a mother. Although Brittanae wants to have a relationship with Adrian, her personal preference is to remain in Ronetta’s custody.
Despite the factual circumstances surrounding Ronetta and Brittanae’s relationship, the legal principles in this case dictate that the parental preference doctrine must be applied. Absent a *903finding of unfitness or forfeiture, the courts may not deprive Adrian of his superior parental right to custody. The evidence in this case simply does not rise to a sufficient level to clear the hurdle of forfeiture because the evidence does not demonstrate a substantial, continuous, or repeated neglect of or long-term indifference to Brittanae’s welfare. As such, the district court’s judgment denying Adrian’s request for custody should be reversed.