SUMMARY: A parent cannot delay a proceeding by challenging paternity when a default order of paternity had been entered years earlier and has remained uncontested by that parent.
Javontae, DOB 6/93, is the child of James, who has been incarcerated a majority of Javontae’s life. On June 3, 2010, the State filed a 3a petition alleging Javontae lacked proper parental care because of James’ incarceration, minimal contact with Javontae and failure to provide support. At an adjudication hearing in July 2010, James objected to a November 1995 district court decree of paternity from being admitted into evidence. The juvenile court denied the motion. At the adjudication hearing on August 6, 2010, James made a motion to continue proceedings so that he could challenge the paternity decree. The court denied the motion. Multiple witnesses testified at the hearings about James’ minimal contact with his son, his absence during incarceration and his failure to provide support. The court found Javontae to be within the meaning of 43-247(3)(a) in that James was incarcerated and failed to provide meaningful support. James appealed.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication. The Court of Appeals noted that if James had wanted to collaterally attack a paternity judgment that was entered in 1995, he should have instituted proceedings in the district court to have the judgment vacated or reversed. Instead, James allowed the decree to remain valid for 15 years before questioning its validity. The Court of Appeals also found that it was proper for the court to deny a continuance to allow James to question the paternity decree because James did not offer any evidence to show that he was not aware of the decree or was otherwise unable to challenge it at an earlier date.
Finally, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of adjudication and noted that James had been incarcerated most of Javontae’s life and had not been able to provide Javontae with housing, financial support or daily parental care.