Background
Leah B. is the biological mother of Jordon B., a newborn removed from her home in September 2020 due to concerns about parental fitness and unsafe living conditions. Jordon was ultimately placed with Rita P., a cousin of Leah’s then-husband Allen B. In November 2022, Leah — represented by her court-appointed attorney, who also notarized the document — signed a DHHS relinquishment form, as did Allen. Rita formally adopted Jordon in June 2023. Leah had previously relinquished her parental rights to two older children, Jacob and Lucas, who were adopted by Leah’s own father and stepmother, and she acknowledged at the hearing that she had fully understood the legal consequences of those prior relinquishments.
In May 2023, Leah filed a pro se motion to rescind the relinquishment, alleging it was procured by threats, coercion, and fraudulent promises made by Allen, Rita, and Allen’s mother, and that her mild intellectual disability — documented in a 2021 neuropsychological evaluation — rendered her incapable of acting knowingly and voluntarily. After the motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a full hearing, which was held in March 2025 with Leah represented by counsel and a court-appointed guardian ad litem.
At the evidentiary hearing, Leah testified that Allen isolated her, verbally abused her, and threatened to “make her life a living hell” if she did not sign. She also testified that Rita promised the couple they could continue to live with or near Jordon and would receive housing and a vehicle. Allen, Rita, Allen’s mother, the DHHS case manager, Leah’s court-appointed attorney, and a DHHS relinquishment specialist each denied making threats or promises. The case manager testified that Leah had in fact initiated discussions about relinquishment as early as 2021, repeatedly refused relinquishment counseling because she said she already understood the process, and appeared “jovial” and eager to sign. Leah herself conceded she had the same full legal understanding of the consequences as she did during her prior relinquishments, and acknowledged she was seeking rescission not to regain custody but to facilitate Jordon’s placement with her father and stepmother.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the juvenile court’s order denying Leah’s motion to rescind. Conducting a de novo review of the record, the court held that Leah failed to meet her burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the relinquishment was the product of fraud, coercion, duress, or threats, or that she lacked the capacity to execute it knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The court expressly adopted the clear-and-convincing standard as the applicable burden for a parent seeking to invalidate a relinquishment of parental rights, aligning Nebraska with the majority of other jurisdictions.
On the incapacity claim, the court held that impaired mental powers do not automatically render a relinquishment invalid; the controlling question is whether the parent understood the meaning, design, and effect of the act. The testimony of the case manager, attorney, and DHHS specialist — corroborated by Leah’s own admissions at the hearing — established that she did. The neuropsychological evaluation, while noting Leah’s below-average IQ, did not opine that she was incapable of executing the relinquishment, and the determination that no guardian ad litem was required was supported by the record.
On the duress and coercion claims, the court found the record supported the juvenile court’s credibility determinations favoring Allen, Rita, and the other witnesses over Leah. The court reiterated that stress alone — including financial or personal stress — does not constitute duress, that a threat to do what one has a legal right to do cannot be duress, and that a parent’s change of attitude after signing is legally insufficient to invalidate a relinquishment. The court also reaffirmed that noncompliance with any post-relinquishment communication or contact expectations cannot serve as grounds for revocation.
Key Takeaways
- A parent challenging a relinquishment of parental rights bears the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence — the court expressly adopts this standard, joining the majority of states.
- A mild intellectual disability does not per se invalidate a relinquishment; the inquiry is whether the parent understood the meaning, design, and effect of the act at the time of signing.
- Duress requires actual constraint that overcomes free will; personal stress, family pressure, or fear of an unfavorable outcome for the child does not rise to that level.
- Post-relinquishment broken promises about contact or other benefits — even if made — do not provide grounds to revoke the relinquishment under Nebraska law.
- A parent’s subsequent change of heart or shift in motive (here, seeking rescission to influence placement rather than to regain custody) is insufficient to undo an otherwise valid relinquishment.
Why It Matters
This decision is a significant clarification for Nebraska juvenile and adoption practitioners. By formally adopting the clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard for relinquishment challenges, the court resolves any prior ambiguity and places a demanding — though not insurmountable — burden on parents seeking to undo voluntary surrenders. The opinion also provides useful guidance on the interplay between intellectual disability and relinquishment capacity, making clear that courts must look to functional understanding rather than diagnostic labels or IQ scores alone.
The ruling reinforces the finality of properly executed relinquishments, offering greater certainty to adoptive families and child welfare agencies while setting clear limits on the theories — duress, coercion, fraud, incapacity — that can support a rescission challenge. For practitioners representing parents with cognitive limitations, the decision underscores the importance of ensuring robust supports (counsel, counseling, separate meetings from co-parents) before and during the relinquishment process, as courts will scrutinize the totality of the circumstances rather than rely on any single protective measure.