Daniel H. v. Tyler R. (In re Micah H.)

15 Citing cases

  1. Kelley L. v. Dustin S. (In re Kate S.)

    315 Neb. 795 (Neb. 2024)

    In Nebraska, the matter of adoption is statutory. See In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437, 918 N.W.2d 834 (2018). Amendments to the statute at issue here, § 43-104, took effect after Kelley and Richard filed their petition for adoption but before the county court issued its order.

  2. Joshua C. v. Jordan G. (In re Adoption of Autumn G.)

    No. A-18-954 (Neb. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2019)

    When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437, 918 N.W.2d 834 (2018). ANALYSIS

  3. William M. v. Andrew A. (In re Antaeus A.)

    31 Neb. App. 907 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023)

    When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. In re Adoption of Micah H. , 301 Neb. 437, 918 N.W.2d 834 (2018).

  4. Brittany B. v. Haley L. (In re Theodore L.)

    No. A-21-331 (Neb. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2022)

    the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437, 918 N.W.2d 834 (2018).

  5. State v. Nathaniel V. (In re Aviyanah S.)

    No. A-18-471 (Neb. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2019)

    There is no precise formula for active efforts; the active efforts standard requires a case-by-case analysis and should be judged by the individual circumstances present in a case. In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437, 918 N.W.2d 834 (2018). However, active efforts made under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1503(1) (Reissue 2016) (defining "active efforts"), should generally be "'culturally relevant.'"

  6. In re Mateo L.

    309 Neb. 565 (Neb. 2021)

    The juvenile court's reliance on § 43-292.02(2)(b) in this case as an exception to § 43-292(7) is therefore misplaced. See, In re Adoption of Micah H., 301 Neb. 437, 918 N.W.2d 834 (2018): In re Interest of Jahon S., 291 Neb. 97, 864 N.W.2d 228 (2015); In re Interest of Zanaya W. et al, 291 Neb. 20, 863 N.W.2d 803 (2015).In re Interest of Alec S., 294 Neb. 784, 797-98, 884 N.W.2d 701, 709 (2016).

  7. State v. Juana L. (In re Mateo L.)

    309 Neb. 565 (Neb. 2021)   Cited 97 times
    In Mateo, the Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's order dismissing the State's petition to terminate a mother's parental rights.

    The juvenile court's reliance on § 43-292.02(2)(b) in this case as an exception to § 43-292(7) is therefore misplaced. See, In re Adoption of Micah H. , 301 Neb. 437, 918 N.W.2d 834 (2018) ; In re Interest of Jahon S. , 291 Neb. 97, 864 N.W.2d 228 (2015) ; In re Interest of Zanaya W. et al. , 291 Neb. 20, 863 N.W.2d 803 (2015).In re Interest of Alec S. , 294 Neb. 784, 797-98, 884 N.W.2d 701, 709 (2016).

  8. Peterson v. Jacobitz

    309 Neb. 486 (Neb. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    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.In re Adoption of Micah H. , 301 Neb. 437, 918 N.W.2d 834 (2018).Id.

  9. Nolasco v. Malcom

    307 Neb. 309 (Neb. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    To the extent an appeal presents questions of law, an appellate court must reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below. See In re Adoption of Micah H. , 301 Neb. 437, 918 N.W.2d 834 (2018). IV. ANALYSIS

  10. Susan W. v. Tara W. (In re Guardianship of Eliza W.)

    304 Neb. 995 (Neb. 2020)   Cited 19 times
    Recognizing that both the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 21 U.S.C. §§ 1901 to 1963, and the Nebraska Indian Child Welfare Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1501 to 43-1517 (Reissue 2016), are guided by general policy of protecting Indian children from being removed from their families and being placed "in homes lacking an appreciation for Native American culture"

    Susan’s argument fails to account for our rejection of the notion that the measures listed in § 43-1503(1)(a) to (h) form a "checklist" in which the initiating party is required to show compliance with each item. See In re Adoption of Micah H. , 301 Neb. 437, 450, 918 N.W.2d 834, 846 (2018). And, in any event, Susan fails to identify any statutory text that supports her argument regarding legislative intention.