Peterson v. Jacobitz , 309 Neb. 486 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    09/03/2021 08:10 AM CDT
    - 486 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    PETERSON v. JACOBITZ
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 486
    Austin Peterson, appellant, v.
    Jodi Jacobitz, now known as
    Jodi Ronhovde, appellee.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed June 18, 2021.    No. S-20-097.
    1. Judgments: Jurisdiction. A jurisdictional issue that does not involve a
    factual dispute presents a question of law.
    2. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juve-
    nile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions indepen-
    dently of the juvenile court’s findings.
    3. Statutes: Appeal and Error. To the extent an appeal calls for statutory
    interpretation or presents questions of law, an appellate court must reach
    an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the
    court below.
    4. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. In construing a statute, a court must
    determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature
    as ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered in its
    plain, ordinary, and popular sense.
    5. Statutes: Appeal and Error. The rules of statutory interpretation require
    an appellate court to give effect to the entire language of a statute, and
    to reconcile different provisions of the statutes so they are consistent,
    harmonious, and sensible.
    6. ____: ____. An appellate court gives effect to all parts of a statute and
    avoids rejecting as superfluous or meaningless any word, clause, or
    sentence.
    Appeal from the County Court for Buffalo County: John P.
    Rademacher, Judge. Affirmed.
    Vikki S. Stamm and Sarah Hammond, of Stamm Romero &
    Associates, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
    - 487 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    PETERSON v. JACOBITZ
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 486
    Jonathan R. Brandt and Carson K. Messersmith, Senior
    Certified Law Student, of Anderson, Klein, Brewster & Brandt,
    for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
    Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
    Heavican, C.J.
    INTRODUCTION
    Austin Peterson (Austin) filed a “Complaint to Establish
    Paternity and Objection to Proposed Adoption” in the Phelps
    County Court. Concluding that it lacked “jurisdiction” because
    the minor child was born in Buffalo County, the court trans-
    ferred the complaint to Buffalo County Court.
    The Buffalo County Court concluded that the Phelps County
    Court lacked jurisdiction to even transfer the case to Buffalo
    County and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Nebraska
    Court of Appeals reversed, and Jodi Jacobitz, now known
    as Jodi Ronhovde (Jodi), sought further review, which we
    granted. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
    BACKGROUND
    Jodi gave birth to Kooper J. in February 2013 in Kearney,
    Nebraska. Prior to Kooper’s birth, Jodi and Austin had
    engaged in a sexual relationship, but ceased dating before
    Kooper’s birth.
    Jodi subsequently was married. Jodi joined her husband
    in petitioning the Phelps County Court, seeking a stepparent
    adoption. As a part of that action, Jodi’s counsel provided
    Austin with notice of the proposed adoption, as Jodi had iden­
    tified him as Kooper’s biological father.
    Austin responded by filing a “Complaint to Establish Pater­
    nity and Objection to Proposed Adoption” on October 21,
    2019, in the Phelps County Court. A hearing was held on
    December 17, at which time Austin motioned for a change of
    venue to Buffalo County “to comply with the jurisdictional
    - 488 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    PETERSON v. JACOBITZ
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 486
    requirement.” The Phelps County Court agreed and found
    that “according to [the] Nebraska Revised Statutes the Phelps
    County Court does not have jurisdiction in this matter” and
    Austin’s “Motion to Transfer the case is granted.” The com-
    plaint was then transferred to Buffalo County.
    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. The Buffalo County Court agreed, stat-
    ing that the “Court finds Phelps County Court lacked jurisdic-
    tion to transfer matter per Neb.Rev.Stat. Section 25-410. Thus
    the Buffalo County Court did not have jurisdiction.”
    Austin appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed,
    reasoning that this case hinged on the difference between
    venue and jurisdiction:
    Therefore, although [Austin] may have filed his
    “Com­plaint to Establish Paternity and Objection to
    Pro­posed Adoption” in the wrong venue, that did not
    deprive the county court for Phelps County of its exclu-
    sive original jurisdiction over adoption proceedings. See
    § 24-517(11). And because the Phelps County Court did
    have jurisdiction over this matter, it likewise had the
    authority to transfer the case to a different county court
    with proper venue. We therefore conclude the county
    court for Buffalo County erred when it found that the
    Phelps County Court’s transfer order was void for lack
    of jurisdiction. 1
    We granted Jodi’s petition for further review.
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
    In her petition for further review, Jodi assigns that the Court
    of Appeals erred in finding that the Phelps County Court had
    subject matter jurisdiction over Austin’s complaint and accord-
    ingly could transfer the complaint to Buffalo County Court.
    1
    Peterson v. Jacobitz, 
    29 Neb. App. 486
    , 493, 
    955 N.W.2d 329
    , 335 (2021).
    - 489 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    PETERSON v. JACOBITZ
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 486
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1-3] A jurisdictional issue that does not involve a factual
    dispute presents a question of law. 2 An appellate court reviews
    juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches its conclu-
    sions independently of the juvenile court’s findings. 3 To the
    extent an appeal calls for statutory interpretation or presents
    questions of law, an appellate court must reach an indepen-
    dent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the
    court below. 4
    ANALYSIS
    This case requires us to interpret § 43-104.05 to determine
    whether the Phelps County Court had jurisdiction to transfer
    Austin’s action to Buffalo County.
    [4-6] In construing a statute, a court must determine and
    give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature as
    ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered
    in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense. 5 The rules of statutory
    interpretation require an appellate court to give effect to the
    entire language of a statute, and to reconcile different provi-
    sions of the statutes so they are consistent, harmonious, and
    sensible. 6 An appellate court gives effect to all parts of a statute
    and avoids rejecting as superfluous or meaningless any word,
    clause, or sentence. 7
    Section 43-104.05 provides in full:
    (1) If a Notice of Objection to Adoption and Intent
    to Obtain Custody is timely filed with the biological
    2
    In re Adoption of Micah H., 
    301 Neb. 437
    , 
    918 N.W.2d 834
     (2018).
    3
    
    Id.
    4
    
    Id.
    5
    Anderson v. A & R Ag Spraying & Trucking, 
    306 Neb. 484
    , 
    946 N.W.2d 435
     (2020).
    6
    E.M. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 
    306 Neb. 1
    , 
    944 N.W.2d 252
     (2020).
    7
    
    Id.
    - 490 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    PETERSON v. JACOBITZ
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 486
    father registry pursuant to section 43-104.02, either the
    putative father, the mother, or her agent specifically des-
    ignated in writing shall, within thirty days after the fil-
    ing of such notice, file a petition for adjudication of
    the notice and a determination of whether the putative
    father’s consent to the proposed adoption is required. The
    petition shall be filed in the county court in the county
    where such child was born or, if a separate juvenile court
    already has jurisdiction over the custody of the child, in
    the county court of the county in which such separate
    juvenile court is located.
    (2) If such a petition is not filed within thirty days after
    the filing of such notice and the mother of the child has
    executed a valid relinquishment and consent to the adop-
    tion within sixty days of the filing of such notice, the
    putative father’s consent to adoption of the child shall not
    be required, he is not entitled to any further notice of the
    adoption proceedings, and any alleged parental rights and
    responsibilities of the putative father shall not be recog-
    nized thereafter in any court.
    (3) After the timely filing of such petition, 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 putative father’s
    claim of paternity, the court shall order DNA testing to
    establish whether the putative father is the biological
    father. The court shall assess the costs of such testing
    between the parties in an equitable manner. Whether the
    putative father’s consent to the adoption is required shall
    be determined pursuant to section 43-104.22. The court
    shall appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the best
    interests of the child.
    (4)(a) The county court of the county where the child
    was born or the separate juvenile court having jurisdic-
    tion over the custody of the child shall have jurisdiction
    over proceedings under this section from the date of
    - 491 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    PETERSON v. JACOBITZ
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 486
    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 adoption proceedings concerning the child, including
    appeals . . . .
    (b) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision,
    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 putative father is
    required for adoption of the minor child and the putative
    father refuses such consent or (ii) the mother of the child,
    within thirty days after the conclusion of proceedings
    under this section, including appeals, has not executed
    a valid relinquishment and consent to the adoption. The
    court, upon its own motion, may retain the case for good
    cause shown.
    The Court of Appeals focused on that part of § 43-104.05(1),
    which reads: “[The] petition shall be filed in the county court
    in the county where such child was born . . . .” It concluded
    that as a county court with exclusive jurisdiction over adoption
    matters under 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-517
     (Cum. Supp. 2020), the
    Phelps County Court had jurisdiction over the action but that,
    per § 43-104.05(1), Phelps County was not the appropriate
    venue and the case should be transferred to the county court for
    the county of the child’s birth, in this instance, Buffalo County.
    The Court of Appeals accordingly concluded that the Buffalo
    County Court erred in dismissing the complaint. The Court of
    Appeals does not address the impact of § 43-104.05(4)(a) on
    its reading of § 43-104.05(1).
    In her petition for further review, Jodi focuses on that part
    of § 43-104.05(4)(a) providing that “[t]he county court of
    the county where the child was born or the separate juvenile
    court having jurisdiction over the custody of the child shall
    have jurisdiction over proceedings under this section . . . .”
    - 492 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    PETERSON v. JACOBITZ
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 486
    Jodi argues that it is this language that provides for jurisdic-
    tion and that it clearly places sole jurisdiction with the county
    court located in the county of the child’s birth. She argues that
    the Court of Appeals’ decision wrongly reads the word “juris-
    diction” in § 43-104.05(4)(a) to mean “venue.”
    We recognize the tension between subsections (1) and
    (4)(a) of § 43-104.05. But we conclude that the purpose of
    § 43-104.05(4)(a) is not to vest jurisdiction with a particular
    court—that power is conferred by § 24-517, which states that
    “[e]ach county court shall have the following jurisdiction:
    . . . (11) Exclusive original jurisdiction in matters of adop-
    tion, except if a separate juvenile court already has jurisdiction
    over the child to be adopted, concurrent original jurisdiction
    with the separate juvenile court.” Rather, § 43-104.05(4)(a)
    describes when and for how long a court having jurisdiction
    should exercise that jurisdiction. We reach this conclusion
    by noting that we must give effect to the entire language of
    a statute and reconcile such so that our results are consistent,
    harmonious, and sensible. With that in mind, we turn to the
    language of § 43-104.05.
    Subsection (1) of § 43-104.05 provides that the complaint
    should be filed in the county court for the county where the
    child was born. For the reasons expressed by the Court of
    Appeals, we agree that this is venue language and that the
    jurisdiction of a county court over adoption matters is con-
    ferred by § 24-517. Thus, § 43-104.05(1) is all about how to
    commence an action.
    Subsection (2) of § 43-104.05 details what happens if the
    petition in subsection (1) is not filed or such a filing is
    not timely—in such cases, a putative father’s consent is not
    required and his rights “shall not be recognized thereafter in
    any court.” Conversely, subsection (3) of § 43-104.05 details
    what to do once a petition is timely filed, specifically detail-
    ing the trial a putative father is entitled to so that the court can
    determine whether his consent to an adoption is required.
    - 493 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    PETERSON v. JACOBITZ
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 486
    Subsection (4) of § 43-104.05, though, is about timing and
    about how long the court in question should exercise authority
    over these proceedings—30 days after the conclusion of adop-
    tion proceedings. In sum, as noted above, subsection (4)(a) of
    § 43-104.05 does not confer jurisdiction; rather, it sets forth
    for what length of time a court’s authority should be exercised.
    To read it in the terms proposed by Jodi would be inconsist­
    ent with, as well as superfluous to, the jurisdictional grant in
    § 24-517 and the venue language of § 43-104.05(1).
    The Court of Appeals concluded that the Phelps County
    Court had jurisdiction to transfer Austin’s complaint to Buffalo
    County because the challenged language in § 43-104.05(1)
    dealt with venue and not jurisdiction. This court holds that the
    language of § 43-104.05(4)(a) did not confer jurisdiction, but
    instead set forth the length of time for which the court should
    exercise its authority. There was no error in the Court of
    Appeals’ decision reversing the dismissal of Austin’s complaint
    by the Buffalo County Court.
    CONCLUSION
    The decision of the Court of Appeals, reversing the county
    court’s dismissal, is affirmed.
    Affirmed.