(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in the Nebraska Indian Child Welfare Act, no adoption shall be decreed unless written consents thereto are filed in the county court of the county in which the person or persons desiring to adopt reside or in the county court in which the juvenile court having jurisdiction over the custody of the child is located and the written consents are executed by:
(a) The minor child, if over fourteen years of age;
(b) Both parents of a child born in lawful wedlock if living, the surviving parent of a child born in lawful wedlock, the mother of a child born out of wedlock, or both the mother and father of a child born out of wedlock as determined pursuant to sections 43-104.08 to 43-104.24; and
(c) In the case of an adoption by a second adult person under subdivision (1)(c) or (2)(b) of section 43-101, the sole legal parent. Such consent shall state that the child or adult child has a sole legal parent and that such sole legal parent wishes for the child or adult child to be adopted by a second adult person.
(2) A written consent or relinquishment for adoption under this section shall not be valid unless signed at least forty-eight hours after the birth of the child.
(3) A petition for adoption shall attest that, at the time of filing:
(a) There were no pending motions in any other court having jurisdiction over the minor child; and
(b) If a juvenile court has jurisdiction over the child, that adoption is the permanency goal in proceedings in juvenile court.
(4) Consent shall not be required of any parent:
(a) Who relinquished the child for adoption by a written instrument;
(b) Who abandoned the child for at least six months next preceding the filing of the adoption petition;
(c) Whose parental rights to such child have been terminated by the order of any court of competent jurisdiction; or
(d) Who is incapable of consenting.
(5) Consent shall not be required of a putative father who has failed to timely file:
(a) A Notice of Objection to Adoption and Intent to Obtain Custody pursuant to section 43-104.02 and, with respect to the absence of such filing, a certificate has been filed pursuant to section 43-104.04; or
(b) A petition pursuant to section 43-104.05 for the adjudication of such father's objection to the adoption and a determination of whether his consent to the adoption is required and the mother of the child has timely executed a valid relinquishment and consent to the adoption pursuant to such section.
(6) Consent shall not be required of an acknowledged or adjudicated father when (a) he has failed to timely file a petition pursuant to section 43-104.05 for the adjudication of such notice and a determination of whether his consent to the adoption is required and (b) the mother of the child has timely executed a valid relinquishment and consent to the adoption pursuant to such section.
(7) Consent shall not be required of an acknowledged father, an adjudicated father, or a putative father who is not required to consent to the adoption pursuant to section 43-104.05 or 43-104.22.
(8) The validity of a relinquishment and consent for adoption is not affected by the fact that a relinquishing person is a minor.
(9)(a) In private adoptions not involving relinquishment of a child to the state or to a licensed child placement agency, a parent or parents who relinquish a child for adoption shall be provided legal counsel of their choice independent from that of the adoptive parent or parents. Such counsel shall be provided at the expense of the adoptive parent or parents prior to the execution of a written relinquishment and consent to adoption or execution of a communication and contact agreement under section 43-166, unless specifically waived in writing.
(b) In private adoptions and adoptions involving relinquishment of a child to a licensed child placement agency other than the state, a parent or parents contemplating relinquishment of a child for adoption shall be offered, at the expense of the adoptive parent or parents or the agency, at least three hours of professional counseling prior to executing a written relinquishment of parental rights or written consent to adoption. Such relinquishment or consent shall state whether the relinquishing parent or parents received or declined counseling.
(10) In the case of a tribal customary adoption as defined in section 43-1503, no consent shall be required except for that of the Indian child's tribe.
Notes of Decisions
In re Adoption of Madysen S., 879 N.W.2d 34 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 29× “A determination regarding parental con- sent, a finding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (2) (Reissue 2008), or a determination regarding substitute consent does not end the court’s inquiry as to whether the petition for adoption should be approved.”
Linda H. v. Tyler R. (In Re Micah H.), 301 Neb. 437 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 9× “Linda and Daniel appealed, assigning as error that (1) the county court erred in finding that ICWA applied at the request of Tyler, a non-Indian, and (2) the county court erred in applying a higher burden of proof to the abandonment element under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (2)…”
In Re Adoption of Kassandra B., 540 N.W.2d 554 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 52× “However, the Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in its mandate to the county court. Rather than remanding for further proceedings, the Court of Appeals held that the law clearly entitled Gomez, who was not an unfit parent, to the immediate custody of his…”
In Re Adoption of Luke, 640 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 22× “" 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.”
In re Adoption of Chase T., 888 N.W.2d 507 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 9× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (Reissue 2016) mandates that certain consents be filed in the county court before an adoption can proceed, including the consent of any district court in Nebraska having jurisdiction of the custody of the minor child.”
In Re Adoption of Corbin J., 775 N.W.2d 404 (Neb. 2009).
· cites it 14× “The county court entered an order finding that John was a putative father and that he had failed to file the requisite Notice of Objection to Adoption and Intent to Obtain Custody, as provided variously in Neb.Rev. Stat. §§ 43-104 to 43-104.25 (Reissue 2008).”
Jesse B. v. Tylee H., 883 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 5× “2 See, generally, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-104 to 43-104.25 (Reissue 2008 & Cum.”
Jennifer T. v. Lindsay P., 298 Neb. 800 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 13× “An order of consent under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (1)(b) (Reissue 2016) granted by the district - 801 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports JENNIFER T.”
In Re Guardianship of Sain, 319 N.W.2d 100 (Neb. 1982).
· cites it 26× “§§ 43-101 to 43-118 (Reissue 1978), and, in particular, §§ 43-104 and 43-105 involving substitute consent.”
In re Adoption of Jaelyn B., 293 Neb. 917 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Similarly, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (4) (Reissue 2008) provides that “[c]onsent shall not be required of an adjudicated or putative father who is not required to con- sent to the adoption pursuant to section 43-104.”
In Re McCauley's Adoption, 131 N.W.2d 174 (Neb. 1964).
· cites it 11× “Section 43-104, R. R. S. 1943, provides in part: “No adoption shall be decreed unless the petition therefor is accompanied by written consents thereto executed *767 by * * * (3) both parents, if living; * * * except that consent shall not be required of any parent who shall: (a)…”
In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 13× “A determination regarding parental con- sent, a finding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (2) (Reissue 2016), or a determination regarding substitute consent does not end the court’s inquiry as to whether the petition for adoption should be approved.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104(1) — 5 cases
In re Adoption of Madysen S., 879 N.W.2d 34 (Neb. 2016).
“A determination regarding parental con- sent, a finding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (2) (Reissue 2008), or a determination regarding substitute consent does not end the court’s inquiry as to whether the petition for adoption should be approved.”
Linda H. v. Tyler R. (In Re Micah H.), 301 Neb. 437 (Neb. 2018).
“Linda and Daniel appealed, assigning as error that (1) the county court erred in finding that ICWA applied at the request of Tyler, a non-Indian, and (2) the county court erred in applying a higher burden of proof to the abandonment element under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (2)…”
In re Adoption of Chase T., 888 N.W.2d 507 (Neb. 2016).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (Reissue 2016) mandates that certain consents be filed in the county court before an adoption can proceed, including the consent of any district court in Nebraska having jurisdiction of the custody of the minor child.”
In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437 (Neb. 2018).
“A determination regarding parental con- sent, a finding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (2) (Reissue 2016), or a determination regarding substitute consent does not end the court’s inquiry as to whether the petition for adoption should be approved.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104(1)(b) — 4 cases
Jennifer T. v. Lindsay P., 298 Neb. 800 (Neb. 2018).
“An order of consent under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (1)(b) (Reissue 2016) granted by the district - 801 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports JENNIFER T.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104(1)(c) — 2 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104(2) — 10 cases
Linda H. v. Tyler R. (In Re Micah H.), 301 Neb. 437 (Neb. 2018).
“Linda and Daniel appealed, assigning as error that (1) the county court erred in finding that ICWA applied at the request of Tyler, a non-Indian, and (2) the county court erred in applying a higher burden of proof to the abandonment element under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (2)…”
In re Adoption of Madysen S., 879 N.W.2d 34 (Neb. 2016).
“A determination regarding parental con- sent, a finding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (2) (Reissue 2008), or a determination regarding substitute consent does not end the court’s inquiry as to whether the petition for adoption should be approved.”
In Re Adoption of Kassandra B., 540 N.W.2d 554 (Neb. 1995).
“However, the Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in its mandate to the county court. Rather than remanding for further proceedings, the Court of Appeals held that the law clearly entitled Gomez, who was not an unfit parent, to the immediate custody of his…”
In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437 (Neb. 2018).
“A determination regarding parental con- sent, a finding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (2) (Reissue 2016), or a determination regarding substitute consent does not end the court’s inquiry as to whether the petition for adoption should be approved.”
In Re Adoption of Corbin J., 775 N.W.2d 404 (Neb. 2009).
“The county court entered an order finding that John was a putative father and that he had failed to file the requisite Notice of Objection to Adoption and Intent to Obtain Custody, as provided variously in Neb.Rev. Stat. §§ 43-104 to 43-104.25 (Reissue 2008).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104(2)(a) — 1 case
Jesse B. v. Tylee H., 883 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2016).
“2 See, generally, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-104 to 43-104.25 (Reissue 2008 & Cum.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104(2)(b) — 7 cases
In re Adoption of Madysen S., 879 N.W.2d 34 (Neb. 2016).
“A determination regarding parental con- sent, a finding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (2) (Reissue 2008), or a determination regarding substitute consent does not end the court’s inquiry as to whether the petition for adoption should be approved.”
Linda H. v. Tyler R. (In Re Micah H.), 301 Neb. 437 (Neb. 2018).
“Linda and Daniel appealed, assigning as error that (1) the county court erred in finding that ICWA applied at the request of Tyler, a non-Indian, and (2) the county court erred in applying a higher burden of proof to the abandonment element under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (2)…”
In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437 (Neb. 2018).
“A determination regarding parental con- sent, a finding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104 (2) (Reissue 2016), or a determination regarding substitute consent does not end the court’s inquiry as to whether the petition for adoption should be approved.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104(3) — 7 cases
In Re Adoption of Kassandra B., 540 N.W.2d 554 (Neb. 1995).
“However, the Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in its mandate to the county court. Rather than remanding for further proceedings, the Court of Appeals held that the law clearly entitled Gomez, who was not an unfit parent, to the immediate custody of his…”
In Re Adoption of Corbin J., 775 N.W.2d 404 (Neb. 2009).
“The county court entered an order finding that John was a putative father and that he had failed to file the requisite Notice of Objection to Adoption and Intent to Obtain Custody, as provided variously in Neb.Rev. Stat. §§ 43-104 to 43-104.25 (Reissue 2008).”
In Re Adoption of Luke, 640 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2002).
“" 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.”
In Re Guardianship of Sain, 319 N.W.2d 100 (Neb. 1982).
“§§ 43-101 to 43-118 (Reissue 1978), and, in particular, §§ 43-104 and 43-105 involving substitute consent.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104(3)(a) — 1 case
In Re Adoption of Luke, 640 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2002).
“" 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.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104(3)(b) — 3 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104(4) — 1 case
Jesse B. v. Tylee H., 883 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2016).
“2 See, generally, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-104 to 43-104.25 (Reissue 2008 & Cum.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104(4)(b) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104(4)(c) — 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.