(1) 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, except that such residency requirement shall not apply in an adoption of an adult child;
(b) The medical histories required by subsection (2) of section 43-107 have been made a part of the court record;
(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; and
(d) If the child to be adopted is committed to the Department of Health and Human Services, the document required by subsection (3) of section 43-107 is a part of the court record.
(2) If the adopted child was born out of wedlock, that fact shall not appear in the decree of adoption.
(3) The court may decree such change of name for the adopted child as the petitioner or petitioners may request.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1939–2023 · leading case:
In Re Adoption of Luke, 640 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2002).
In Re Adoption of Luke, 640 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 26× “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 .”
In re Adoption of Madysen S., 879 N.W.2d 34 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 2× “But our implicit reasoning in Klein that a parent could effectively vindicate his or her rights by waiting until an appeal from the final judgment of adoption supports the broad proposition that an order in an adoption proceeding is not final if the underlying adoption is still…”
Yopp v. Batt, 467 N.W.2d 868 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 8× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-109 (Cum. Supp. 1990) requires that in order for the adoption of a child to take place, a hearing on the best interests of the child must be held, the child must have lived with the prospective adoptive family for the previous 6 months, the medical history…”
Shoecraft v. Catholic Soc. Servs. Bureau, Inc., 385 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 4× “See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-109 (Reissue 1984). While, indeed, it can be argued that most adoptive parents who take a child into their home believe that, at the completion of 6 months, the adoption will become final, nevertheless the statute makes no such assurances.”
Brett M. Ex Rel. Nebraska Child.'s Home Soc'y v. Vesely, 757 N.W.2d 360 (Neb. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Because Morgan had not resided with the Veselys for 6 months when the agency sought to revoke the placement and filed this habeas corpus action, no formal adoption proceedings had yet been undertaken.”
In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 6× “Supreme Court has long recognized that state intervention in a parent-child relationship is subject to constitutional oversight.”
Smith v. Smith, 497 N.W.2d 44 (Neb. 1993).
· cites it 2× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-109 (Cum. Supp. 1990).”
In Re Adoption of Krystal P., 540 N.W.2d 312 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 2× “The district court affirmed the county court and ordered the case remanded to the county court for a hearing in accordance with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-109 (Reissue 1993) and other necessary adoption-related activities.”
DeSoe v. Taylor, 285 N.W. 538 (Neb. 1939).
· cites it 2× “Section 43-109, Comp. St. 1929, adopted in 1897, reads as follows: “Unless the terms and conditions in such consent and petition otherwise provide, the person or persons adopting, and the child adopted shall after adoption, sustain toward each other the usual relation and the…”
In Re Est. of Neil, 191 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1971).
“ide, the person or persons adopting, and the child adopted shall after adoption, sustain toward each other the usual relation and the adopted child shall have bestowed upon him or her equal rights, privileges and immunities of children bom in lawful wedlock, of parent and child,…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-109(1) — 3 cases
In Re Adoption of Luke, 640 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2002).
“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 .”
In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437 (Neb. 2018).
“Supreme Court has long recognized that state intervention in a parent-child relationship is subject to constitutional oversight.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-109(1)(a) — 2 cases
Brett M. Ex Rel. Nebraska Child.'s Home Soc'y v. Vesely, 757 N.W.2d 360 (Neb. 2008).
“Because Morgan had not resided with the Veselys for 6 months when the agency sought to revoke the placement and filed this habeas corpus action, no formal adoption proceedings had yet been undertaken.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-109(c) — 3 cases
In Re Adoption of Luke, 640 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2002).
“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 .”
In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437 (Neb. 2018).
“Supreme Court has long recognized that state intervention in a parent-child relationship is subject to constitutional oversight.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-109(l)(c) — 1 case
Yopp v. Batt, 467 N.W.2d 868 (Neb. 1991).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-109 (Cum. Supp. 1990) requires that in order for the adoption of a child to take place, a hearing on the best interests of the child must be held, the child must have lived with the prospective adoptive family for the previous 6 months, the medical history…”
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.