Court Opinion

ID: 9671518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:38:16.573572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:10.442285
License: Public Domain

Gerrard, J.,
dissenting.
The holding of the majority opinion is that Nebraska law requires a biological parent to relinquish his or her parental rights in order for a child to be eligible for adoption by a party other than the biological parent’s spouse. The majority bases this determination in part on the conclusion that A.E. cannot adopt Luke without extinguishing B.P.’s parental rights. I disagree. In my view, the dispositive issue in this case is whether Nebraska law permits a second-parent adoption when the adoptive parent is not married to the minor child’s biological parent. I believe that it does and would therefore reverse the judgment of the county court.
COUNTY COURT JUDGMENT
First, I disagree with the majority’s representation of the county court’s order denying the petition for adoption. The majority states that “Luke was not eligible for adoption, the county court determined that his adoption by A.E. was precluded on this basis, and we affirm on this basis.” The majority further states, “[t]he county court also concluded that a single adult person could adopt only when the child had been relinquished and that therefore, since B.P. had not relinquished Luke, A.E. could not adopt Luke because he was not eligible for adoption.”
The majority indicates that the county court denied the adoption petition on two alternative bases: (1) Luke was a child ineligible for adoption because B.P.’s relinquishment of Luke was ineffective and (2) two nonmarried persons are not permitted to adopt under Nebraska law. The county court’s order, however, states the following:
It is this Judge’s opinion that everyone with the potential to successfully parent a child in foster care or adoption should be entitled to a fair and equal consideration regardless of sexual orientation or differing lifestyle. The statutes in effect in Nebraska say different. I believe the statues [sic] permit a single adult person to adopt a child after all necessary consents and relinquishments have been filed; and in such cases the consent acts also as a relinquishment, or a spouse may adopt upon consent of the other spouse. *379There is no provision in Nebraska law that allow [sic] two non-married persons to adopt a minor child, no matter how qualified they are to be an adoptive parent.
The petition for adoption is denied.
I cannot read the county court’s order to support the construction placed upon it by the majority. The county court simply did not make a determination regarding B.P.’s relinquishment of Luke, or lack thereof. The sole basis stated for the county court’s denial of the petition was the county court’s conclusion that an unmarried couple cannot adopt under Nebraska law.
NECESSITY OF RELINQUISHMENT
Even if the county court had reached the issue whether B.P.’s relinquishment of Luke was valid, I do not agree with the majority’s affirmance of the county court’s judgment on that basis. In my opinion, the Nebraska adoption statutes do not support the majority’s conclusion that B.P was required to relinquish Luke before Luke was eligible for adoption by A.E.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-102 (Cum. Supp. 2000) provides, in relevant part, that “any person or persons desiring to adopt a minor child or an adult child shall file a petition for adoption signed and sworn to by the person or persons desiring to adopt. The consent or consents required by sections 43-104 and 43-105 .. . shall be filed prior to the hearing.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (Cum. Supp. 2000) in turn provides, in relevant part, that
no adoption shall be decreed unless written consents thereto are filed in the court of the county in which the person or persons desiring to adopt reside and the written consents are executed by ... the mother of a child bom out of wedlock . . . except that consent shall not be required of any parent who (a) has relinquished the child for adoption by a written instrument....
This section establishes a distinction between a consent and a relinquishment. Moreover, the statute clearly contemplates that there will be circumstances under which there is a consent to an adoption, but not a relinquishment. The statute states that a consent is required except when the biological parent has executed a relinquishment. If a relinquishment by a biological parent is *380necessary in all cases, then the statutory language requiring consent in all other cases would be a redundancy.
The effect of a parental relinquishment is set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-106.01 (Reissue 1998), which provides in relevant part:
When a child shall have been relinquished by written instrument ... to the Department of Health and Human Services or to a licensed child placement agency ... the person so relinquishing shall be relieved of all parental duties toward and all responsibilities for such child and have no rights over such child.
In addition, this court has held that in the case of private adoptions, a biological parent who relinquishes his or her rights to a child by a valid written instrument gives up all rights to the child at the time of the relinquishment. Yopp v. Batt, 237 Neb. 779, 467 N.W.2d 868 (1991). See, also, Gomez v. Savage, 254 Neb. 836, 580 N.W.2d 523 (1998).
While § 43-106.01 and Yopp, supra, establish the legal effect of a voluntary relinquishment, they do not, however, provide that a relinquishment is required from a biological parent for a petition for a decree of adoption to be considered when that biological parent is one of the parties to the adoption petition. In the search for such a requirement, the majority relies on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-109 (Cum. Supp. 2000), which provides in relevant part:
If, upon the hearing, the court finds that such adoption is for the best interests of such minor child or such adult child, a decree of adoption shall be entered. No decree of adoption shall be entered unless (a) it appears that the child has resided with the person or persons petitioning for such adoption for at least six months next preceding the entering of the decree of adoption . . . (c) the court record includes an affidavit or affidavits signed by the relinquishing biological parent, or parents if both are available, in which it is affirmed that, pursuant to section 43-106.02, prior to the relinquishment of the child for adoption, the relinquishing parent was, or parents if both are available were, (i) presented a copy or copies of the nonconsent form provided for in section 43-146.06 and (ii) given an explanation of the effects of filing or not filing the nonconsent form.
*381The majority reads this section to imply that a relinquishment from a biological parent must be present in all cases. However, there are clearly circumstances in which there will not be such a relinquishment. The majority acknowledges that there need be — indeed, can be — no relinquishment when the biological parent’s parental rights have been terminated and concludes that relinquishment is unnecessary in the case of a spousal second-parent adoption. There can also obviously be no relinquishment when the child’s biological parents are deceased or the child has been abandoned. Because the Legislature could not have been unaware of these situations, it is evident that the Legislature could not have intended § 43-109 to require an affidavit from a relinquishing parent where there is no relinquishing parent. While § 43-109 requires that the record include affidavits from the relinquishing parents if there are relinquishing parents, the statute does not address when relinquishment is and is not necessary. Simply put, if there is a statutory source for the majority’s conclusion that a relinquishment from a biological parent is required before a child is eligible for adoption, that source is not § 43-109.
The majority further relies on Gray v. Maxwell, 206 Neb. 385, 293 N.W.2d 90 (1980), to support the conclusion that relinquishment is required. Gray does not support the construction placed upon it by the majority. In Gray, the biological mother brought a habeas corpus action seeking to regain custody of her minor child. The biological mother alleged that the relinquishment she had executed was invalid. The district court agreed and granted habeas relief. On appeal, we concluded that the biological mother’s relinquishment had been given for consideration beyond the payment of her medical expenses and that the promise to pay for the child was against public policy and vitiated the relinquishment. Id. We remanded the cause for a hearing on the fitness of the biological mother. Id.
The majority describes Gray as holding that “in a private adoption case where the prospective adoptive parent was not a spouse of the biological parent, there must be a relinquishment by the biological parent and the relinquishment must be valid in order for the child to become eligible for adoption.” Our opinion in Gray contains no basis for this assertion.
*382Nebraska law provides that an adoption cannot go forward without the consent of the biological parent or a substitute for that consent, one possible form of which is relinquishment of parental rights. See § 43-104. In Gray, supra, the relinquishment was not valid and the biological mother obviously did not consent to the adoption. The question whether relinquishment was a jurisdictional prerequisite, with or without the consent of the biological parent, was not at issue. Not only does Gray not support the construction placed upon it by the majority, but Gray is inapposite to the instant case.
In fact, the language used throughout the statutes and this court’s jurisprudence dictate a conclusion contrary to that of the majority: Either a valid relinquishment or a consent to adoption suffices to permit a county court to entertain an adoption proceeding. See, e.g., Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-107 (Cum. Supp. 2000) and 43-104.09, 43-146.01, 43-164, and 43-1411 (Reissue 1998) (statutes referring to “consent or relinquishment” for purposes of adoption). Although “or” is not always used in the disjunctive, it is usually so considered, and that is its commonly accepted meaning. State ex rel. Finigan v. Norfolk Live Stock Sales Co., Inc., 178 Neb. 87, 132 N.W.2d 302 (1964).
Based on this statutory language, we stated in In re Adoption of Kassandra B. & Nicholas B., 248 Neb. 912, 922, 540 N.W.2d 554, 560 (1995), that “[c]hildren are not legally free for adoption unless both biological parents consent or one of the statutory exceptions to the need for their consent has been met.” See, also, e.g., Kellie v. Lutheran Family & Social Service, 208 Neb. 767, 305 N.W.2d 874 (1981); Batt v. Nebraska Children’s Home Society, 185 Neb. 124, 174 N.W.2d 88 (1970) (referring to requirement of “consent or relinquishment”). Thus, our cases have followed the general rule that while parental consent to an adoption of one’s biological child is normally required for a valid adoption, such consent may not be required of a parent who has forfeited his or her parental rights by voluntary relinquishment. See 2 Am. Jur. 2d Adoption § 74 (1994).
This court’s jurisprudence has previously been consistent with the scheme established by the adoption statutes, which permit an adoption to proceed if the biological parents consent or an exception to the consent requirement is present, with *383relinquishment of parental rights serving, not as an independent requirement, but simply as an exception to the consent requirement. If a biological parent relinquishes his or her parental rights, that relinquishment is immediately effective and irrevocable. See Gomez v. Savage, 254 Neb. 836, 580 N.W.2d 523 (1998). If there is no relinquishment but there is consent to the adoption, then the adoption proceeds to entry of the decree of adoption, at which point, the parental rights of the biological parent are, under most circumstances, extinguished. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-106 and 43-111 (Reissue 1998). The statutes permit adoption without a relinquishment of parental rights where the biological parent is a party to the adoption petition, so long as the biological parent consents to the adoption or a substitute for that consent is provided. The majority’s creation of a “relinquishment requirement” is contrary to the explicit language of the statutes and the dictates of our established jurisprudence.
Furthermore, the majority expressly disclaims any ruling on the issue whether appellants could adopt “jointly” if B.R actually relinquished her parental rights. The majority thus appears to leave the door open for appellants to effectively accomplish a second-parent adoption, but only by virtue of an unwieldy and illogical process. If the end result of an unmarried second-parent adoption is permitted, then it makes little sense to insist that the biological parent “relinquish” his or her rights — when the parent has no real intention of doing so — only to further require that he or she ask in the petition for adoption to have those rights restored by the decree when they never should have been relinquished in the first place. Not only would this rule value form over substance, but it would expose the biological parent to a substantial risk. A relinquishment is irrevocable from its execution, and a conditional relinquishment is invalid. See, Yopp v. Batt, 237 Neb. 779, 467 N.W.2d 868 (1991); Auman v. Toomey, 220 Neb. 70, 368 N.W.2d 459 (1985). The mandate of relinquishment prior to adoption would require the biological parent to surrender his or her rights without any assurance that those rights would be restored. Since a biological parent is unlikely to assume that risk, a mandate of “relinquishment” in effect precludes many such adoptions from taking place.
*384Moreover, there is no purpose to requiring a relinquishment to be given under such circumstances. Notably, the majority opines regarding the “importance of ‘relinquishment’ in the adoption statutes,” but at no point endeavors to justify why relinquishment may be important, or explain how the purposes of the adoption statutes are advanced by the majority’s interpretation of the statutes and application of that interpretation to the instant case.
For instance, it is certainly appropriate to require that a parent expressly relinquish parental rights where an adoption is intended to completely sever the child’s relationship with his or her birth parent and provide the child with a new family. Refusing to allow a parent to consent to an adoption while maintaining his or her own parental status, however, does not further the important goal of finality. Unlike other adoptions, second-parent adoptions are not subject to later attack by the consenting parent because that consenting parent neither has lost parental rights nor wishes to lose those rights through the adoption. See, generally, Theresa Glennon, Binding the Family Ties: A Child Advocacy Perspective on Second-Parent Adoptions, 7 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 255 (1998). It simply serves no legitimate purpose to require a biological mother to relinquish her parental rights prior to the entry of a second-parent adoption under these circumstances.
That, however, begs consideration of the other justification for the majority’s holding: the conclusion that the termination provision of § 43-111 is inescapable unless the parties are married. I now turn to that analysis.
SECOND-PARENT ADOPTION BY UNMARRIED ADOPTIVE PARENT
The majority further bases its holding on the conclusion that B.P. must “relinquish” her parental rights because A.E. cannot adopt Luke without extinguishing B.P.’s parental rights. I also disagree with this conclusion, as an appropriate interpretation of Nebraska’s adoption statutes reveals no basis for mandating this result.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-101(1) (Cum. Supp. 2000) provides:
Except as otherwise provided in the Nebraska Indian Child Welfare Act, any minor child may be adopted by any adult *385person or persons and any adult child may be adopted by the spouse of such child’s parent in the cases and subject to sections 43-101 to 43-115, except that no person having a husband or wife may adopt a minor child unless the husband or wife joins in the petition therefor. If the husband or wife so joins in the petition therefor, the adoption shall be by them jointly, except that an adult husband or wife may adopt a child of the other spouse whether bom in or out of wedlock.
Section 43-111 provides:
Except as provided in section 43-106.01 . . . after a decree of adoption has been entered, the natural parents of the adopted child shall be relieved of all parental duties toward and all responsibilities for such child and have no rights over such adopted child or to his or her property by descent and distribution.
In construing these statutes, the majority ignores the long-established rule that the adoption statutes should be given a liberal rather than a strict construction due to the humanitarian aspects and purposes of such statutes. See Neil v. Masterson, 187 Neb. 364, 191 N.W.2d 448 (1971). The tendency of all our decisions has been toward a liberal construction of the law in all cases of adoption. In re Estate of Taylor, 136 Neb. 227, 285 N.W. 538 (1939).
“The adoption statute is a humane provision, which looks to the interest of children primarily. This is its controlling idea and policy. Therefore, every reasonable intendment should be indulged, in case of doubt, in the line of promoting that object. Other courts have taken the same view, but, if it were otherwise, our duty to carry out an obvious legislative intent would be the same.... It has made, and is making, a multitude of happy homes, happy parents, happy children, and valuable members of society, and no narrow construction should be indulged in that will tend to defeat a result so obviously intended and in every way so beneficial.”
Ferguson v. Herr, 64 Neb. 649, 665, 94 N.W. 542, 545 (1903). The best interests of the child should be kept at the forefront of such an inquiry. See Yopp v. Batt, 237 Neb. 779, 467 N.W.2d 868 (1991).
*386With that understanding in mind, the statutory scheme as a whole serves to advance two fundamental purposes: (1) ensuring that biological parents are informed of their rights and consent to the adoption proceedings and (2) providing for the best interests of the child. See, e.g., § 43-109. The majority analyzes the wrong issue: the question is not whether the statutes specifically permit a second-parent adoption where the adoptive parent and biological parent are not married, but instead whether the statutes explicitly prohibit such an adoption.
The statutes provide, in extremely broad language, that “any minor child may be adopted by any adult person or persons,” § 43-101(1), if the county court “finds that such adoption is for the best interests of such minor child,” § 43-109(1). Our Legislature, like many others, has declined to make categorical assumptions about what adoptive parents or familial relationships are preferable and has instead left it to the county court to conduct a fact-specific inquiry into whether a particular adoption is in the best interests of the child. As stated by one commentator:
[Wjhat is unmistakably clear from looking at adoption statutes is the legislative delegation of decision-making power in individual cases to judges. Compelling functional justifications support this institutional design. Adoption law is built on a premise of delegation: the legislature grants broad powers to courts to make case by case decisions and to decide what arrangement is in a child’s best interests. This sort of delegation, of course, goes beyond the adoption context and describes much of family law affecting children, such as custody and visitation decisions.
. . . The highly individualized and proceduralized fact-finding procedures used by judges enable them to engage closely with the specific circumstances in which children find themselves.
Jane S. Schacter, Constructing Families in a Democracy: Courts, Legislatures and Second-Parent Adoption, 75 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 933, 942-43 (2000).
It is plainly inconsistent with such a scheme to inteipret § 43-111 as requiring the extinguishment of a biological parent’s parental rights under circumstances such as those presented in this case. As stated by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts:
*387The purpose of the termination provision is to protect the security of the child’s newly-created family unit by eliminating involvement with the child’s natural parents. Although it is not uncommon for a natural parent to join in the adoption petition of a spouse who is not the child’s natural parent... the statute has never been construed to require the termination of the natural parent’s legal relationship to the child in these circumstances. . . . Reading the adoption statute as a whole, we conclude that the termination provision . . . was intended to apply only when the natural parents (or parent) are not parties to the adoption petition.
(Citations omitted.) Adoption of Tammy, 416 Mass. 205, 216, 619 N.E.2d 315, 321 (1993). The termination provision was “designed as a shield to protect new adoptive families, [but] was never intended as a sword to prohibit otherwise beneficial intrafamily adoptions by second parents.” Matter of Jacob, 86 N.Y.2d 651, 669, 660 N.E.2d 397, 405, 636 N.Y.S.2d 716, 724 (1995). Compare In re Estate of Luckey Bailey v. Luckey, 206 Neb. 53, 291 N.W.2d 235 (1980).
The majority implicitly acknowledges as much when it concedes that § 43-111 is not operative when the adoptive parent is the spouse of the child’s biological parent. This concession is made, however, despite the fact that when read literally, § 43-111 sets forth no exception to the termination provision, regardless of whether the adoptive parent is married to the biological parent. The majority makes little effort to explain why an exception is warranted under one circumstance, but not the other. Notably absent from the majority’s analysis is any consideration of what this court has previously held to be the primary interpretive principle applicable to the adoption statutes: the best interests of children. By prioritizing the relationship between the adults, the majority relegates to the shadows the relationship most directly at issue — that of parent and child. We are not called upon to pass judgment on the relationship between A.E. and B.R or to make a policy determination regarding the advantages or disadvantages of second-parent adoptions in general. If any policy determination is to be made in that regard, it is a decision for the Legislature to make within the bounds of the constitution — and the Legislature has thus far been silent on the question.
*388The adoption statutes, properly construed, permit any person or persons, married or unmarried, to petition the county court for a decree of adoption, but require them to obtain the necessary consents and to show that such adoption is in the best interests of the child. There is no bar in the statutes to unmarried couples seeking to jointly adopt, or seeking a second-parent adoption, to both join in such a petition. In the case of a second-parent adoption, whether the couple is married or not, when the adoption is shown to be in the best interests of the child, the county court may specify that both parties to the petition are decreed to be the parents of the minor child; that is, permit the adoptive parent to adopt the child while allowing the biological parent to retain all his or her parental rights and obligations. This result is consistent with the statutory language; is the most flexible and sensible approach to interpreting statutes that will be applied to a wide variety of unforeseeable circumstances; and, most importantly, maintains the longstanding rule that the adoption statutes must be reasonably interpreted to effectuate the best interests of adoptive children.
Given our long-established principle of interpreting the adoption statutes liberally to effectuate the best interests of the child, I conclude that there must be an unequivocal indication of legislative intent to abandon the best interests of the child standard before limiting who can be an adoptive parent. The Nebraska adoption statutes evidence no such unequivocal intent. I would hold that the statutes permit a second-parent adoption of a minor child by an adoptive parent who is not married to the child’s biological parent, so long as the biological parent consents to the adoption and the adoption is found to be in the child’s best interests.
CONCLUSION
Despite my disagreement with the majority’s analysis, I agree with the majority insofar as it concludes that the constitutional claims raised in the parties’ briefs are not pertinent to the dispositive issues on appeal. In spite of the efforts of the parties and various amici to turn this appeal into a forum for or against gay and lesbian rights, the question before this court is one of statutory interpretation, and that analysis is not affected by the gender *389or sexual orientation of the biological or prospective adoptive parent. While some of the cases cited above involved circumstances, like those of the instant case, in which the biological and prospective adoptive parent were of the same gender, I emphasize that Nebraska’s statutes make no distinction on that point; my analysis — and that of the majority — is not premised on any distinction involving the gender and sexual orientation of the couple seeking a second-parent adoption. That distinction or other distinctions (if any are to be made within the bounds of the constitution) are the province of the Legislature, and that body has not spoken on the issue.
I would reverse the judgment of the county court dismissing the adoption petition, because I believe the county court erroneously determined that it did not have the statutory authority to enter the requested adoption decree. Because the county court did not decide whether the adoption sought was in the best interests of Luke, I would remand the cause to the county court for further proceedings relating to that issue. I respectfully dissent.