## Facts

- Dakota D. (mother) and Jeremiah J. (father) were unmarried and separated during the pregnancy; mother told father he was not the child’s father and that she did not want him involved.
- A few months later, mother contacted an adoption agency about placing the unborn child for adoption and identified father as the possible biological father.
- The adoption agency contacted father and provided written notice that, to preserve his right to withhold consent, he needed to file a notice of objection/petition within five business days after the child’s birth under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.02.
- Father told the agency he opposed the adoption and wanted custody. He began saving money from his wages to care for the child and took steps to assert parental rights.
- The child was born on February 9, 2012. Mother did not tell father the child had been born and intentionally concealed the birth to prevent him from timely filing within the five-business-day window.
- Father filed his petition objecting to the adoption and seeking a ruling that his consent was necessary, but he filed outside five business days from the actual birth because he did not know the true birth date.
- In earlier proceedings, the county court granted summary judgment against father as untimely. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for factfinding on whether mother’s conduct equitably estopped her from relying on the statutory deadline.
- On remand, the county court held a bench trial. Mother argued father’s consent was unnecessary because he had not provided reasonable financial support and because he was unfit, alleging daily marijuana use, prior crack cocaine use, abuse, minor criminal history, and unstable employment.
- Father denied the drug-use and abuse allegations and presented evidence of steady full-time work, earnings, and savings set aside for the child. He also argued that mother’s refusal to communicate and concealment of the birth made it difficult to provide support earlier.
- The county court credited father’s account, found mother deliberately hid the birth, ruled mother was estopped from using the five-day deadline, and concluded father’s consent was required for any adoption. Mother appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a mother who intentionally concealed a child’s birth from the biological father is equitably estopped from asserting the five-business-day filing deadline in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-104.02 to defeat the father’s objection to adoption.
2. Whether the mother proved by clear and convincing evidence that the father’s consent was not required because he abandoned or neglected the child, was unfit, or failed to provide reasonable financial support during pregnancy and after birth.
3. Whether the father’s lack of financial support within the statutory time frame can excuse the need for his consent when the mother’s conduct prevented or materially hindered timely support and participation.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the county court’s post-remand judgment.
- The court held mother was equitably estopped from relying on § 43-104.02’s five-business-day deadline because she intentionally concealed the birth to prevent father from meeting the statute’s requirements.
- The court held mother failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that father abandoned or neglected the child.
- The court held mother failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that father was an unfit parent; the county court was entitled to credit father’s denials and evidence of employment and preparation to care for the child.
- The court rejected mother’s argument that father’s consent could be bypassed due to lack of financial support, where mother’s conduct made timely support and involvement difficult.
- As a result, father’s consent was required before the child could be adopted.

## Legal Principles

- A party may be equitably estopped from asserting a statutory deadline when that party’s intentional conduct caused the other party’s noncompliance; a mother may not hide or misstate a birth date to prevent a biological father from timely objecting and then rely on the resulting untimeliness.
- In adoption-consent disputes, statutory grounds to dispense with a biological parent’s consent (including abandonment/neglect, unfitness, or failure to provide reasonable support) must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
- Claims of parental unfitness require strong proof tied to parenting ability; disputed accusations (such as drug use or abuse) do not meet the burden when the trier of fact finds the opposing testimony more credible.
- When one parent intentionally blocks the other parent’s opportunity to support or participate, that interference may weigh against finding abandonment, neglect, or a disqualifying failure to support.
- Appellate review is de novo on the record, while giving weight to the trial court’s credibility determinations when testimony conflicts.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the determination that Jeremiah J.’s consent was required for any adoption because Dakota D. deliberately concealed the child’s birth and was estopped from using the five-day objection deadline, and because she did not carry her clear-and-convincing burden to show abandonment, neglect, unfitness, or a disqualifying failure of support in light of father’s efforts and mother’s interference.


Jeremiah J. v. Dakota D., 843 N.W.2d 820 (2014)