99 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 55 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Watkins v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2016In In re Guardianship of D.J., 268 Neb. at 247 , 682 N.W.2d at 245 , we stated that “in custody disputes between a parent and nonparent, courts turn to the parental preference principle because the best interests standard, taken to its logi- cal conclusion, would place the minor children of all but the ‘worthiest’ members of society in jeopardy of a custody chal- lenge.” See, also, Watkins v. Nelson, 163 N.J. 235 , 748 A.2d 558 (2000); Worden v. Worden, 434 N.W.2d 341, 342 (N.D. 1989) (stating that “[a]bsent exceptional circumstances the natural parent is entitled to custody of the child even 2016In In re Guardianship of D.J., 268 Neb. at 247 , 682 N.W.2d at 245 , we stated that “in custody disputes between a parent and nonparent, courts turn to the parental preference principle because the best interests standard, taken to its logi- cal conclusion, would place the minor children of all but the ‘worthiest’ members of society in jeopardy of a custody chal- lenge.” See, also, Watkins v. Nelson, 163 N.J. 235 , 748 A.2d 558 (2000); Worden v. Worden, 434 N.W.2d 341, 342 (N.D. 1989) (stating that “[a]bsent exceptional circumstances the natural parent is entitled to custody of the child even | 2 | 3 |
In Re Xavier H.green2 sentences2021In light of Juana’s circumstances, her relation- ship with her children, and her consistent efforts to reunify with them, we conclude on our de novo review that it is not. [10,11] Under § 43-292, it is the State’s burden by clear and convincing evidence to show that there not only exists a statu- tory basis for termination but that termination is in the best interests of the child. 15 Whereas statutory grounds are based on a parent’s past conduct, the best interests inquiry focuses on the future well-being of the child. 16 This second hurdle is a high one for the State, since a parent’s right 2021In light of Juana’s circumstances, her relation- ship with her children, and her consistent efforts to reunify with them, we conclude on our de novo review that it is not. [10,11] Under § 43-292, it is the State’s burden by clear and convincing evidence to show that there not only exists a statu- tory basis for termination but that termination is in the best interests of the child. 15 Whereas statutory grounds are based on a parent’s past conduct, the best interests inquiry focuses on the future well-being of the child. 16 This second hurdle is a high one for the State, since a parent’s right | 2 | 2 |
Farnsworth v. Farnsworthgreen2 sentences2024After considering the best interests factors, the court found that “the greater weight of the evidence shows that [Christa] should receive primary physical custody of Conner subject to [James’] parenting time.” The court further found that Christa had a legitimate reason to relocate with Conner and, after considering the factors set forth in Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242 , 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999), that the factors weighed in favor of granting Christa’s request to remove Conner and that relocation was in Conner’s best interests. 2024After considering the best interests factors, the court found that “the greater weight of the evidence shows that [Christa] should receive primary physical custody of Conner subject to [James’] parenting time.” The court further found that Christa had a legitimate reason to relocate with Conner and, after considering the factors set forth in Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242 , 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999), that the factors weighed in favor of granting Christa’s request to remove Conner and that relocation was in Conner’s best interests. | 1 | 5 |
Kenneth C. v. Lacie H.green2 sentences2021In light of Juana’s circumstances, her relation- ship with her children, and her consistent efforts to reunify with them, we conclude on our de novo review that it is not. [10,11] Under § 43-292, it is the State’s burden by clear and convincing evidence to show that there not only exists a statu- tory basis for termination but that termination is in the best interests of the child. 15 Whereas statutory grounds are based on a parent’s past conduct, the best interests inquiry focuses on the future well-being of the child. 16 This second hurdle is a high one for the State, since a parent’s right 2021In light of Juana’s circumstances, her relation- ship with her children, and her consistent efforts to reunify with them, we conclude on our de novo review that it is not. [10,11] Under § 43-292, it is the State’s burden by clear and convincing evidence to show that there not only exists a statu- tory basis for termination but that termination is in the best interests of the child. 15 Whereas statutory grounds are based on a parent’s past conduct, the best interests inquiry focuses on the future well-being of the child. 16 This second hurdle is a high one for the State, since a parent’s right | 1 | 3 |
State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T.green2 sentences2025See State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933 , 932 N.W.2d 692 (2019). 2025See State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933 , 932 N.W.2d 692 (2019). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Sir Messiah T.green2 sentences2023See In re Interest of Sir Messiah T., 279 Neb. 900 , 782 N.W.2d 320 (2010). 2023See In re Interest of Sir Messiah T., 279 Neb. 900 , 782 N.W.2d 320 (2010). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Interest of Angelica L.green2 sentences2014Based on the idea that fit parents act in the best interests of their children, this presumption is overcome only when the State has proved that a parent is unfit.7 The term “unfitness” is not expressly used in § 43-292, but the concept is gener- ally encompassed by the fault and neglect subsections of that statute, and also through a determination of the children’s best interests.8 In discussing the constitutionally protected relationship between a parent and a child, we have stated that “‘“[p]arental unfitness means a personal deficiency or incapac- ity which has prevented, or will probably 2014Based on the idea that fit parents act in the best interests of their children, this presumption is overcome only when the State has proved that a parent is unfit.7 The term “unfitness” is not expressly used in § 43-292, but the concept is gener- ally encompassed by the fault and neglect subsections of that statute, and also through a determination of the children’s best interests.8 In discussing the constitutionally protected relationship between a parent and a child, we have stated that “‘“[p]arental unfitness means a personal deficiency or incapac- ity which has prevented, or will probably | 1 | 2 |
In re Interest of Brelynn E.green1 sentence2025See In re Interest of Brelynn E., 30 Neb. | 1 | 1 |
Jaeger v. Jaegergreen2 sentences2024See Jaeger v. Jaeger, 307 Neb. 910 , 951 N.W.2d 367 (2020). 2024See Jaeger v. Jaeger, 307 Neb. 910 , 951 N.W.2d 367 (2020). | 1 | 1 |
| Weatherly v. Cochrangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Worden v. Wordengreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Guardianship of Saingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vogel v. Vogelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Interest of Jahon S.
green
2 sentences2025In re Interest of Jahon S., 291 Neb. 97 , 864 N.W.2d 228 (2015). 2015Ed. 2d 49 (2000). 8 In re Interest of Kendra M. et al., supra note 5 ; In re Interest of Hope L. et al., supra note 4 . 9 See, In re Interest of Nicole M., supra note 3; In re Interest of Kendra M. et al., supra note 5 ; Uhing v. Uhing, 241 Neb. 368 , 488 N.W.2d 366 (1992). - 105 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports IN RE INTEREST OF JAHON S. Cite as 291 Neb. 97 The best interests analysis and the parental fitness analy- sis are fact-intensive inquiries. | 19 | 2015–2025 |
In re Interest of Leyton C. & Landyn C.
green
2 sentences2025Id. 2025Id. | 13 | 2020–2025 |
In re Interest of Isabel P.
green
2 sentences2022In re Interest of Isabel P. et al., 293 Neb. 62 , 875 N.W.2d 848 (2016). 2021Id. -8- The best interests analysis and the parental fitness analysis are fact-intensive inquiries. | 12 | 2016–2022 |
In re Interest of Alec S.
green
2 sentences2020Id. 2016App. at 801, 876 N.W.2d at 402. 14 Id. 15 In re Interest of Isabel P. et al., supra note 6. - 796 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports IN RE INTEREST OF ALEC S. Cite as 294 Neb. 784 between a parent and a child, parental unfitness means a per- sonal deficiency or incapacity which has prevented, or will probably prevent, performance of a reasonable parental obliga- tion in child rearing and which has caused, or probably will result in, detriment to a child’s well-being.16 The best interests analysis and the parental fitness analysis are separate inquiries, but each exa | 4 | 2016–2020 |
In re Interest of Lizabella R.
green
2 sentences2019In re Interest of Lizabella R. , 25 Neb. 2019In re Interest of Lizabella R., 25 Neb. | 4 | 2018–2019 |
Quilloin v. Walcott
green
2 sentences2026Best Interests [4-6] Under § 43-292, it is the State’s burden by clear and convincing evidence to show that there not only exists a statu- tory basis for termination but that termination is in the best interests of the child. 19 Whereas the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights are based on a parent’s past con- duct, the best interests inquiry focuses on the future well-being of the child. 20 In this regard, we have emphasized that the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution would be offended “‘“[i]f a [s]tate were to attempt to force the breakup of a natu- ral family, over 2026Best Interests [4-6] Under § 43-292, it is the State’s burden by clear and convincing evidence to show that there not only exists a statu- tory basis for termination but that termination is in the best interests of the child. 19 Whereas the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights are based on a parent’s past con- duct, the best interests inquiry focuses on the future well-being of the child. 20 In this regard, we have emphasized that the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution would be offended “‘“[i]f a [s]tate were to attempt to force the breakup of a natu- ral family, over | 3 | 2021–2026 |
In re Interest of Mateo L.
green
2 sentences2024In re Interest of Mateo L. et al., 309 Neb. 565 , 961 N.W.2d 516 (2021). 2023This second hurdle is a high one for the State, since a parent’s right to raise his or her children is constitutionally protected.” In re Interest of Mateo L. et al., 309 Neb. 565 , 582, 961 N.W.2d 516 , 528-29 (2021). | 3 | 2023–2024 |
Jones v. Jones
green
2 sentences2021Jones v. Jones, 305 Neb. 615 , 941 N.W.2d 501 (2020). 2021Jones v. Jones, 305 Neb. 615 , 941 N.W.2d 501 (2020). | 3 | 2020–2021 |
In re Interest of Denzel D.
green
2 sentences2026Appellant also argues that 19 In re Interest of Denzel D., 314 Neb. 631 , 992 N.W.2d 471 (2023). 20 Id. 21 Id. at 640, 992 N.W.2d at 479. 2024In re Interest of Denzel D., 314 Neb. 631 , 992 N.W.2d 471 (2023). | 2 | 2024–2026 |
In re Interest of Noah C.
green
2 sentences2021In light of Juana’s circumstances, her relation- ship with her children, and her consistent efforts to reunify with them, we conclude on our de novo review that it is not. [10,11] Under § 43-292, it is the State’s burden by clear and convincing evidence to show that there not only exists a statu- tory basis for termination but that termination is in the best interests of the child. 15 Whereas statutory grounds are based on a parent’s past conduct, the best interests inquiry focuses on the future well-being of the child. 16 This second hurdle is a high one for the State, since a parent’s right 2021In light of Juana’s circumstances, her relation- ship with her children, and her consistent efforts to reunify with them, we conclude on our de novo review that it is not. [10,11] Under § 43-292, it is the State’s burden by clear and convincing evidence to show that there not only exists a statu- tory basis for termination but that termination is in the best interests of the child. 15 Whereas statutory grounds are based on a parent’s past conduct, the best interests inquiry focuses on the future well-being of the child. 16 This second hurdle is a high one for the State, since a parent’s right | 2 | 2021–2021 |
In re Interest of Nicole M.
green
2 sentences2020In re Interest of Nicole M., 287 Neb. 685 , 844 N.W.2d 65 (2014). 2014Nebraska Advance Sheets IN RE INTEREST OF NICOLE M. 705 Cite as 287 Neb. 685 analysis are fact-intensive inquiries. | 2 | 2014–2020 |
Yopp v. Batt
green
2 sentences2016Physical custody of the child may remain with the prospective adoptive family during the pendency of the proceedings if the 55 Monty S. & Teresa S., supra note 21, 290 Neb. at 1052 , 863 N.W.2d at 489. 56 Yopp v. Batt, 237 Neb. 779 , 467 N.W.2d 868 (1991). - 996 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports JESSE B. v. TYLEE H. 2016Physical custody of the child may remain with the prospective adoptive family during the pendency of the proceedings if the 55 Monty S. & Teresa S., supra note 21, 290 Neb. at 1052 , 863 N.W.2d at 489. 56 Yopp v. Batt, 237 Neb. 779 , 467 N.W.2d 868 (1991). - 996 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports JESSE B. v. TYLEE H. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
UHING ON BEHALF OF JONES v. Uhing
green
2 sentences2015Ed. 2d 49 (2000). 8 In re Interest of Kendra M. et al., supra note 5 ; In re Interest of Hope L. et al., supra note 4 . 9 See, In re Interest of Nicole M., supra note 3; In re Interest of Kendra M. et al., supra note 5 ; Uhing v. Uhing, 241 Neb. 368 , 488 N.W.2d 366 (1992). - 105 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports IN RE INTEREST OF JAHON S. Cite as 291 Neb. 97 The best interests analysis and the parental fitness analy- sis are fact-intensive inquiries. 2015Ed. 2d 49 (2000). 8 In re Interest of Kendra M. et al., supra note 5 ; In re Interest of Hope L. et al., supra note 4 . 9 See, In re Interest of Nicole M., supra note 3; In re Interest of Kendra M. et al., supra note 5 ; Uhing v. Uhing, 241 Neb. 368 , 488 N.W.2d 366 (1992). - 105 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports IN RE INTEREST OF JAHON S. Cite as 291 Neb. 97 The best interests analysis and the parental fitness analy- sis are fact-intensive inquiries. | 2 | 2004–2015 |
In re Interest of Joel T.
neutral
1 sentence2026Cite as 321 Neb. 106 best interests of the child. 19 Whereas the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights are based on a parent’s past con- duct, the best interests inquiry focuses on the future well-being of the child. 20 In this regard, we have emphasized that the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution would be offended “‘[i]f a [s]tate were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness.’” 21 [11-13] We apply a rebuttable presumption that it is in the child’s best interests to mai | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In re Interest of Cameron L. & David L.
green
1 sentence2025In re Interest of Cameron L. & David L., 32 Neb. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Benjamin S. v. Crystal S.
green
2 sentences2024Benjamin S. v. Crystal S., 313 Neb. 799 , 986 N.W.2d 492 (2023). 2024Benjamin S. v. Crystal S., 313 Neb. 799 , 986 N.W.2d 492 (2023). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Adoption of Faith F.
green
1 sentence2023By its plain language, § 43-533(5) does not set forth a legal presumption controlling a best interests analysis, nor does it limit the factors a trial court may consider in deciding whether granting a petition for adoption is in the child’s best interests. 34 Id. at 983. 35 Id. 36 See G.S. v. T.B., supra note 33 . - 516 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 313 Nebraska Reports IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F. Cite as 313 Neb. 491 Section 43-533(5) provides that when pursuing either adoption or “other permanent settings,” the best interests of the child shall be the “overriding concern.” [12,13] R | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Adoption of Kassandra B.
green
2 sentences2023See, also, Houser v. American Paving Asphalt, supra note 4 ; Schmunk v. Aquatic Solutions, supra note 4 ; State v. Keenan, supra note 4; Flodman v. Robinson, supra note 4; Lesser v. Eagle Hills Homeowners’ Assn., supra note 4. 16 See In re Adoption of Kassandra B. & Nicholas B., 248 Neb. 912 , 540 N.W.2d 554 (1995) (Connolly, J., dissenting; Gerrard, J., joins). 17 See Susan Nauss Exon, The Best Interest of the Child: Going Beyond Legalese to Empathize with a Client’s Leap of Faith, 24 J. 2023See, also, Houser v. American Paving Asphalt, supra note 4 ; Schmunk v. Aquatic Solutions, supra note 4 ; State v. Keenan, supra note 4; Flodman v. Robinson, supra note 4; Lesser v. Eagle Hills Homeowners’ Assn., supra note 4. 16 See In re Adoption of Kassandra B. & Nicholas B., 248 Neb. 912 , 540 N.W.2d 554 (1995) (Connolly, J., dissenting; Gerrard, J., joins). 17 See Susan Nauss Exon, The Best Interest of the Child: Going Beyond Legalese to Empathize with a Client’s Leap of Faith, 24 J. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Gs v. Tb
green
1 sentence2023By its plain language, § 43-533(5) does not set forth a legal presumption controlling a best interests analysis, nor does it limit the factors a trial court may consider in deciding whether granting a petition for adoption is in the child’s best interests. 34 Id. at 983. 35 Id. 36 See G.S. v. T.B., supra note 33 . - 516 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 313 Nebraska Reports IN RE ADOPTION OF FAITH F. Cite as 313 Neb. 491 Section 43-533(5) provides that when pursuing either adoption or “other permanent settings,” the best interests of the child shall be the “overriding concern.” [12,13] R | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Interest of Aaron D.
green
2 sentences2023Charles attempts to equate this case with In re Interest of Aaron D., 269 Neb. 249 , 691 N.W.2d 164 (2005), while arguing that the State failed to adduce evidence focusing on the children’s condition in the best interests analysis, as opposed to focusing solely on his conduct. 2023Charles attempts to equate this case with In re Interest of Aaron D., 269 Neb. 249 , 691 N.W.2d 164 (2005), while arguing that the State failed to adduce evidence focusing on the children’s condition in the best interests analysis, as opposed to focusing solely on his conduct. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Taylor-Couchman v. DeWitt-Couchman green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Anderson v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2021Jessica cites case law similar to that set forth in Anderson v. Anderson, 5 Neb. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Smith v. King green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re Interest of Veronica H. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In re Interest of Donald B. & Devin B. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Adams v. Adams green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Heather R. v. Mark R. (In Re K.R.) green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Stewart v. Heineman green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In Re Guardianship of DJ green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In re Interest of Tavian B. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Windham v. Griffin green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Jesse B. v. Tylee H. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| McCormick v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Steffy v. Steffy green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Gerber v. Gerber green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Hickenbottom v. Hickenbottom green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Nielsen v. Nielsen green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Weinand v. Weinand green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Collins v. Gilbreath green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.