October 2008 NOTE.  This case, cited as Amanda C., by and through Gary Richmond, natural parent and next friend, appellee, v. Kelly Case, appellant.__N.W.2d__ Filed May 23, 2008. No. S-06-1097 originally located at http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/opinions/2008/may/may23/s06-1097.pdf seems to now have disappeared from the earth.

We did find this synopsis-

NEBRASKA: Amanda C. v. Case

The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of appellee Amanda C., holding that the district court did not err in ruling that appellant, Kelly Case, an employee of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, was collaterally estopped from disputing the fact that she had violated Amanda’s constitutional rights and that the violation resulted in actual harm to Amanda. Amanda C.’s birth father, Gary Richmond, previously sued appellant Case in the district court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that Case engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by counseling him about the legal benefits and consequences of relinquishing his rights and ultimately persuading him to sign a relinquishment agreement, thereby depriving him of his substantive due process right of custody to his child. A jury found in his favor, awarding him damages and nullifying the relinquishment agreement. Case appealed, but dismissed the appeal after settling with Richmond. Less than a year later, Richmond filed this §1983 complaint against Case on behalf of Amanda, alleging Case interfered with Amanda’s constitutional right to a relationship with Richmond by pressuring him to relinquish his parental rights so that Amanda could be adopted by her grandparents. Amanda moved for summary judgment on the liability issue, citing the previous district court judgment against Case. The district court granted the motion and, after a bench trial on damages, awarded Richmond money damages; Case appealed. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed that Richmond’s successful §1983 action against Case precluded relitigation of the wrongfulness of her decision to counsel Richmond to relinquish custody of Amanda. The Court found an identity of claims, noting parents’ fundamental constitutional rights to custody and control of their children and concluding that children have reciprocal rights to care and custody by their parents. In so ruling, the Court rejected Case’s arguments that Amanda’s substantive due process rights had not been violated because the relinquishment was in her best interests and that, in any event, her conduct did not implicate Amanda’s due process rights because of the deterioration of any parent-child relationship with Richmond prior to Case’s intervention. The Court also held that the district court did not err in finding that the wrongfully orchestrated relinquishment of Richmond’s parental rights resulted in actual harm to Amanda, as the weight of the evidence supported that finding. As an aside, the Court questioned why Case, a government actor, initially raised the defense of qualified immunity but did not pursue it.
Cite: No. S-06-1097; 2008 Neb. LEXIS 75 (Neb. Sup. Ct. May 23, 2008)
Link to Full Opinion