Gallardo-Hernandez v. Martinez-Dorantes

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Gallardo-Hernandez v. Martinez-Dorantes

Case Number
Call Date
April 26, 2023
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Case Location
Court Type
District Court
Case Summary

S-22-0549 Tania Gallardo Hernandez (Appellant) v. Emilio Martinez Dorantes (Appellee)

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge Marlon A. Polk

Attorneys: Anna D. Deal (Immigrant Legal Center for Appellant).  No brief submitted by Appellee. 

Civil: Dissolution of Marriage and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1238(b)

Proceedings Below: The district court dissolved the marriage of the parties and awarded Appellant sole physical and legal custody of the minor child but overruled her request for findings pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1238(b).  On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.

Issues on Appeal:  Appellant raises the following assignments of error:  1) The trial court erred by declining to make a finding in its decree as to whether the evidence and testimony presented was sufficient to establish that Appellee has neglected his minor child under Nebraska law; 2) The trial court erred by failing to include a finding in its decree as to whether sufficient evidence demonstrates that the minor child’s reunification with Appellee is “nonviable” due to such neglect, within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1238(b) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J); 3) The trial court erred to the extent it found that a “nonviability of reunification” finding under Nebraska statute and federal law requires termination of parental rights; 4) The trial court erred to the extent it reasoned it should not make a “nonviability of reunification” finding wherever reunification is hypothetically possible upon changed circumstances, particularly where such changes are purely speculative and seemingly unlikely; 5) The trial court erred by excluding from evidence Appellant’s sworn declaration at proposed Exhibit 3 because it was not translated or interpreted into Appellee’s native language; and 6) The trial court abused its discretion and unfairly prejudiced the minor child when it declined to make the findings of fact Appellant requested.

Schedule Code