Court Opinion

ID: 9741237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:52:10.82145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:23.060679
License: Public Domain

Hastings, J.,
dissenting.
The result of the majority opinion ignores the fundamental question which is present in every habeas corpus case involving child custody. That is, what is in the best interests of the child.
The opinion relies heavily upon McCauley v. Stewart, 177 Neb. 759, 131 N.W.2d 174 (1964), a proceeding in an adoption case which involved a consent and relinquishment which was void because it had not been acknowledged. The trial court had held that the suitability of the natural parents to have custody of the child would not be an issue if the adoption were invalid and there had been no abandonment. Although this court held the decree of adoption was invalid, the judgment was modified and that portion of the decree which awarded custody of the minor child to the natural parents was not affirmed.
In Gray v. Maxwell, 206 Neb. 385, 293 N.W.2d 90 (1980), we determined that a relinquishment to a private party was invalid, but went further and held that under the circumstances there must be an independent determination of the fitness of the natural parent and that an award of custody was to be founded upon the best interests of the child.
The majority today has determined that the relinquishment to an agency, if found invalid, will be treated differently than an invalid relinquishment to a private party. The fate of a child should not be *774subject to such a fine distinction. The cause should be remanded for a determination of custody based upon the best interests of the child.
Boslaugh, J., joins in this dissent.