Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over a petition for grandparent visitation under Nebraska's grandparent visitation statutes. The court vacated the dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction and remanded for consideration of the petition under the statutory standards, declining to decide the statute's as-applied constitutionality at that stage.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over a petition for grandparent visitation filed under Nebraska's grandparent-visitation statutes after the child's parents' marriage had been dissolved.
- Whether a potential constitutional defect in applying the grandparent-visitation statute deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Whether the Nebraska Supreme Court should decide on appeal whether the statute was unconstitutional as applied to Suzette Kane's petition.
Holdings
- The district court had subject matter jurisdiction because Nebraska statutes expressly authorize a grandparent to seek visitation in the district court when the child's parents' marriage has been dissolved.
- A potential constitutional defect in applying the grandparent-visitation statute does not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction; if the statute cannot constitutionally be applied to the particular circumstances, the court should deny the petition on the merits rather than dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court declined to decide the as-applied constitutional question because the district court had not first determined whether the petition satisfied the statutory standard for grandparent visitation.
Key quotations
“The fact that the grant of a petition might be unconstitutional as applied does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction over a petition; rather, it simply means that the grandparent visitation statutes cannot be constitutionally applied to a particular scenario. In that instance, a court would deny the petition, not dismiss it for a lack of jurisdiction.” (663-664)
“Any question of the constitutionality of § 43-1802, as applied, should be made only as necessary following such a determination on the merits of the petition by the district court.” (664)
Factual background
Suzette Kane sought grandparent visitation with the minor children of her daughter, Shauna Kane, and Shauna's former husband, Michael Leonard. Shauna and Michael opposed visitation and supported their dismissal motion with affidavits describing an allegedly abusive, estranged, and difficult relationship with Suzette, while Suzette submitted an affidavit asserting that she had always maintained a strong relationship with the children. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on its conclusion that the grandparent-visitation statute was unconstitutional as applied.
Procedural history
Suzette Kane filed a petition seeking grandparent visitation with her minor grandchildren after the children's parents' marriage was dissolved. The parents moved to dismiss under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(1) and (6). The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that applying Nebraska's grandparent-visitation statute would unconstitutionally infringe the parents' fundamental liberty interest in raising their children. The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
Vacate the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and consider Suzette Kane's petition under the merits standard in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1802(2). Address any as-applied constitutional issue only as necessary after determining whether the petition should be granted under that statutory standard.