## Facts

- Teresa S. and Monty S. (biological parents) agreed with friends Jason W. and Rebecca W. (prospective adoptive parents) that Teresa would conceive and carry a child for an “open” adoption in which the biological parents would remain involved in the child’s life.
- A son was born in July 2013.
- Two days after the birth, Teresa and Monty each signed written documents relinquishing parental rights and consenting to adoption by Jason and Rebecca in a private adoption.
- After the relinquishments, Teresa and Monty had visits with the child consistent with the parties’ “open adoption” understanding; later, the visits stopped.
- Nearly one year after the birth, Teresa and Monty filed a habeas corpus action seeking return of the child, alleging the relinquishments were invalid due to fraud, duress, and failure to provide required statutory forms.
- The district court rejected the fraud/duress/coercion allegations but held the relinquishments invalid because they were conditional on the biological parents retaining a continuing parental role under the “open adoption” plan.
- Following a best-interests hearing, the district court awarded custody to Teresa and Monty.
- Jason and Rebecca appealed, challenging (1) exclusion of evidence about post-relinquishment visitation and (2) the ruling that the relinquishments and consents were invalid.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by excluding evidence of post-relinquishment visits and why those visits ended.
2. Whether the district court erred in concluding the relinquishments and consents were conditional due to the “open adoption” arrangement and therefore invalid under Nebraska adoption law.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
- The district court did not err in excluding evidence of post-relinquishment visits and the reasons for their termination.
- The district court did not err in determining the relinquishments and consents were conditioned on the biological parents retaining a parental role and were therefore invalid.
- Because the attempted private adoption was ineffective, the custody order awarding the child to Teresa and Monty was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Child-custody habeas corpus decisions are reviewed de novo on the record.
- A natural parent challenging a relinquishment bears the burden to prove it was not voluntarily given.
- Absent threats, coercion, fraud, or duress, a knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily executed written relinquishment and consent is generally valid.
- In a private adoption, a relinquishment must surrender all parental rights; a parent cannot relinquish rights while retaining parental rights.
- When a purported relinquishment is conditional on continued parental involvement, it is not the unconditional relinquishment required for adoption and is invalid; the natural parents remain the child’s legal parents and may seek custody through habeas corpus.

## Conclusion

The court held that the parties’ “open adoption” understanding showed the biological parents’ relinquishments were not unconditional surrenders of all parental rights, making the attempted private adoption legally ineffective; the evidentiary ruling and the custody award to the biological parents were affirmed.


Monty S. & Teresa S. v. Jason W. & Rebecca W., 290 Neb. 1048, 863 N.W.2d 484 (Neb. 2015)