Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05 (2026)

Child born out of wedlock; notice; filed; petition for adjudication of paternity; trial; guardian ad litem; court; jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1)(a) A putative, acknowledged, or adjudicated father objecting to a proposed adoption may file a petition objecting to the adoption and seeking a determination of whether the objecting father's consent to the proposed adoption is required. A putative father may only file such petition if he has timely filed a Notice of Objection to Adoption and Intent to Obtain Custody with the putative father registry pursuant to section 43-104.02.

(b) The petition shall be filed within forty-five days after the later of the child's birth or the objecting father's receipt of notice under sections 43-104.12 to 43-104.14.

(c)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (1)(c)(ii) of this section, the petition shall be filed in the county court in the county where such child was born or, if a juvenile court already has jurisdiction over the custody of the child, in the county court of the county in which such juvenile court is located.

(ii) If the child was not born in Nebraska, the petition shall be filed in the county court of the county where either the biological mother or objecting father resides.

(d) A timely petition objecting to the adoption must be filed by an objecting putative, acknowledged, or adjudicated father of a minor child born out of wedlock who is the subject of a proposed adoption.

(e) Such petition may be filed by and defended by a minor in the minor's own name.

(2) If a petition objecting to a proposed adoption is not filed within the deadline provided in subdivision (1)(b) of this section, and the mother of the child has executed a valid relinquishment and consent to the adoption within ninety days after the later of the birth of the child or the objecting father's receipt of notice under sections 43-104.12 to 43-104.14, the putative, acknowledged, or adjudicated father's consent to adoption of the child shall not be required, he is not entitled to any further notice of the adoption proceedings, his right to object to the adoption shall not be recognized thereafter in any court, and his parental rights to such child will be terminated upon entry of an adoption decree.

(3) After the timely filing of a petition objecting to a proposed adoption, the court shall set a trial date upon proper notice to the parties not less than twenty nor more than thirty days after the date of such filing. If the mother contests the objecting father's claim of paternity, the court shall order DNA testing to establish whether the objecting father is the biological father. The court shall assess the costs of such testing between the parties in an equitable manner. Whether the objecting father's consent to the adoption is required shall be determined pursuant to section 43-104.22, except that such consent is not required if the objecting father is not the biological father. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the best interests of the child.

(4)(a) The county court or juvenile court having jurisdiction over the custody of the child shall have exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings under this section from the date of notice provided under section 43-104.12 or the last date of published notice under section 43-104.14, whichever notice is earlier, until thirty days after the conclusion of proceedings under this section, including appeals, unless such jurisdiction is transferred under subdivision (b) of this subsection.

(b) Except as provided in subdivision (4)(c) of this section, the court shall, upon the motion of any party, transfer the case to the district court for further proceedings on the matters of custody, visitation, and child support with respect to such child if:

(i) Such court determines under section 43-104.22 that the consent of the objecting father is required for adoption of the minor child and the objecting father refuses such consent; or

(ii) The mother of the child, within ninety days after the conclusion of proceedings under this section, including appeals, has not executed a valid relinquishment and consent to the adoption.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2021 · leading case: Peterson v. Jacobitz, 29 Neb. Ct. App. 486 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Peterson v. Jacobitz, 29 Neb. Ct. App. 486 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 19× “The procedure for adjudicating paternity set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05 (Reissue 2016) is an integral part of the statutory mechanism for the adoption of a child born out of wedlock and is therefore a matter of adoption which falls within - 487 - Nebraska Court of…”

Jesse B. v. Tylee H., 883 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 8× “She argued that Jesse could have com- menced a proceeding under § 43-104.05 and alleged that he - 981 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports JESSE B.”

In Re Adoption of Baby Girl H., 635 N.W.2d 256 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 25× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05 (Reissue 1998) requires a putative father to file a petition for adjudication of paternity in county court within 30 days of filing a notice of intent to claim paternity in order to preserve his rights to notice of adoption proceedings.”

In re Adoption of Jaelyn B., 293 Neb. 917 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 7× “The court stated that Jesse had never filed an admin- istrative objection, never contested the adoption in county court, and never asked a county court to determine whether his consent was required.”

Armour v. L.H., 608 N.W.2d 599 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 22× “Luke Armour appeals from an order of the district court for Gosper County, Nebraska, dismissing his petition filed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05 (Reissue 1998) by which he sought an adjudication of paternity and custody of a child born out of wedlock.”

Bohaboj v. Rausch, 721 N.W.2d 655 (Neb. 2006). · cites it 6× “In response, relying on the adoption statutes, specifically § 43-104.05, Rausch claims that Bohaboj’s paternity action under consideration was filed out of time and that because Rausch intends to relinquish the child, the district court did not err in concluding that the matter…”

In Re Adoption of Jaden M., 725 N.W.2d 410 (Neb. 2006). · cites it 4× “02, a notice of *792 intent to claim paternity with the biological father registry and that he failed to comply with § 43-104.05 by not filing a petition to have his paternity claim adjudicated within 30 days.”

Peterson v. Jacobitz, 309 Neb. 486 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 24× “Jodi filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05 (Reissue 2016), the Phelps County Court never had jurisdiction and thus could not have transferred the case to Buffalo County.”

In re Claim of Roberts for Attorney Fees, 307 Neb. 346 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 29-3703 (Reissue 2016); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05 (Reissue 2016); Neb.”

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05(1) — 2 cases

Peterson v. Jacobitz, 29 Neb. Ct. App. 486 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). “The procedure for adjudicating paternity set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05 (Reissue 2016) is an integral part of the statutory mechanism for the adoption of a child born out of wedlock and is therefore a matter of adoption which falls within - 487 - Nebraska Court of…”

Peterson v. Jacobitz, 309 Neb. 486 (Neb. 2021). “Jodi filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05 (Reissue 2016), the Phelps County Court never had jurisdiction and thus could not have transferred the case to Buffalo County.”

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05(3) — 1 case

In re Adoption of Jaelyn B., 293 Neb. 917 (Neb. 2016). “The court stated that Jesse had never filed an admin- istrative objection, never contested the adoption in county court, and never asked a county court to determine whether his consent was required.”

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.05(4)(a) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.