In re Change of Name of Druckenmiller

- 807 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER
Cite as 316 Neb. 807
In re Change of Name of Druckenmiller.
J.D., a minor, by and through his mother and next
friend, Carmen Druckenmiller, appellant,
v. Garth Druckenmiller, appellee.
S.D., a minor, by and through his mother and next
friend, Carmen Druckenmiller, appellant,
v. Garth Druckenmiller, appellee.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed June 7, 2024. 	Nos. S-23-340, S-23-341.
1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question that does not
involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter
of law.
2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court independently
reviews questions of law decided by a lower court.
3. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. It is the duty of an appellate court to
determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.
4. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory language is to be given its plain
and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to inter-
pretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain,
direct, and unambiguous.
5. Jurisdiction: Minors: Names. Under the plain language of Neb. Rev.
Stat. §§ 25-21,270 to 25-21,273 (Reissue 2016 & Cum. Supp. 2022),
a district court, exercising jurisdiction in a name change case, has no
power to decide whether a minor child’s birth date should be changed.
6. Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction: Equity. Article V, § 9, of the
Nebraska Constitution confers equity jurisdiction upon the district
courts.
7. Jurisdiction: Equity. If a court of equity has properly acquired jurisdic-
tion of a suit for equitable relief, it may make complete adjudication
of all matters properly presented and involved in the case and grant
relief, legal or equitable, as may be required and thus avoid unneces-
sary litigation.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 08:38 AM CDT

- 808 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER
Cite as 316 Neb. 807
8. Actions: Equity: Jurisdiction. An action in equity must be founded on
some recognized source of equity jurisdiction.
9. Equity. In dealing with legal rights, a court of equity adopts and follows
the rules of law in all cases to which those rules are applicable, and
whenever there is an explicit statute or a direct rule of law governing the
case in all its circumstances, a court of equity is as much bound by it as
would be a court of law.
10. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Equity. A court’s equitable powers can-
not be used to provide relief that is contrary to statutory or constitutional
requirements, and courts of equity can no more disregard statutory and
constitutional requirements and provisions than can courts of law.
11. Statutes: Equity. A court acting in equity may not provide for nonlegal,
equitable remedies to avoid unduly harsh application of a statute.
12. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. When a trial court lacks jurisdiction
to adjudicate the merits of a claim, issue, or question, an appellate court
also lacks the power to determine the merits of the claim, issue, or ques-
tion presented to the lower court.
Appeals from the District Court for Burt County: John E.
Samson, Judge. Affirmed.
John P. Farrell, of The Law Offices of John P. Farrell,
L.L.C., for appellant.
No appearance by appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Cassel, J.
INTRODUCTION
In these name change proceedings, a district court granted
the name change requests of two minor children but found
that it lacked jurisdiction to change the “arbitrarily chosen”
birth dates listed on the children’s foreign adoption certificates.
The adoptive mother appeals on behalf of both children. We
conclude that there is no explicit statutory authority or recog-
nized source of equity jurisdiction allowing a district court to
change a minor child’s birth date in a name change proceeding.
Therefore, we affirm the district court’s decrees.

- 809 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER
Cite as 316 Neb. 807
BACKGROUND
Petitions
Carmen Druckenmiller filed two petitions—both labeled
“Verified Petition for Name Change”—in the district court
for Burt County, Nebraska, on behalf of her adoptive minor
children, J.D. and S.D. The petitions were filed under separate
district court case numbers. They set forth two general requests
for relief.
First, the petition for each child sought to change his legal
name in order to “correct the error made at the time of [the]
minor child’s birth in completing the required paperwork to
name the minor child.” Because we focus solely on the second
request for relief, we mention the first one only to note that it
was made.
Second, the petition for each child sought to change his
birth date to “a year younger” in order to “reflect the correct
date of birth for legal and educational purposes.” The peti-
tions set forth the following allegations: The children were
born in a rural area in Ethiopia without “official” birth certifi-
cates; an incorrect birth date was “arbitrarily chosen” for each
child’s “adoption certificate”; and at the time of the adop-
tions, a bone scan was done, stating that each child’s “cor-
rect birthdate was a year younger than stated on the adoption
certificate”—in other words, the children were a year younger
than their adoption certificates indicated. Finally, the petitions
alleged that a current bone scan of each child “confirm[ed]
the [minor child’s] birthdate as a year younger than on his
certificate of citizenship.”
The petitions did not specify the “correct” or “incorrect”
birth dates, and the records presented do not contain the
“adoption certificate[s]” or “certificate[s] of citizenship.” We
understand the references to these certificates to refer to the
children’s foreign adoption certificates and their certificates
of citizenship issued by the federal government. It appears
that the birth dates were provided in a “Confidential Party

- 810 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER
Cite as 316 Neb. 807
Information Form,” which is not included in the appellate
records.
We note that the records show no indication the adoptive
father participated in the proceedings below, and he is not par-
ticipating in the appeals.
Hearing
The district court held a joint hearing on both petitions,
during which it heard testimony from Druckenmiller and both
children. At that time, the children were purported to be
16 years old (J.D.) and 15 years old (S.D.). The court also
received exhibits pertaining to the children’s ages.
From the bill of exceptions, we learn that Druckenmiller
and the adoptive father were formerly married and that they
adopted the children in Ethiopia in 2011. The children’s
names were designated by the adoption agency, and because
their birth dates were unknown, the adoption agency “just
kind of picked birth dates to put on a birth certificate.” The
couple had apparently agreed to give the children different
names and to “readopt” them in the United States in order
to change their birth dates, but the readoption did not occur
before the couple divorced.
Druckenmiller’s testimony suggested that readoption was
no longer an option unless the adoptive father “gives up all
parental rights, which neither of us want.” However, she
believed that she could work with “Vital Records” in order
to make the desired changes after obtaining a court order.
Given the context, we understand “Vital Records” to mean the
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),
the agency that handles the registration and certification of
vital events in Nebraska. 1 We note that the records do not
contain any documentation sent to or from DHHS, and DHHS
was not a party in the cases.
1 See, generally, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 71-601 to 71-649 (Reissue 2018 & Cum.
Supp. 2022) (vital statistics statutes).

- 811 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER
Cite as 316 Neb. 807
At the close of the evidence, the court granted the name
change requests for both children and took the requests to
change their birth dates under advisement. The court gave
Druckenmiller’s counsel an opportunity to submit briefing on
“any legal authority which allows a [d]istrict [c]ourt on a name
change application to have the jurisdiction to change a minor
child’s date of birth.” The records suggest that counsel submit-
ted a letter to the court to that effect.
District Court’s Decrees
The district court entered two decrees—one regarding J.D.
and the other regarding S.D.—in which it granted the name
change requests for both children but denied the requests to
change the “incorrect” birth dates. In refusing to change the
birth dates, the court reasoned, in full, in both decrees:
(a) The Court does not have jurisdiction to render such
an Order; and,
(b) If the Court had jurisdiction, the Court finds that
[Druckenmiller] did not meet her burden of proof to
establish: (i) That it is in the best interest of the minor
child for “legal reasons” to change the birth date, espe-
cially when considering [Druckenmiller] could not estab-
lish the exact birth date of the minor child, nor did she
articulate “legal” reasons that were detrimental to the
minor child; and (ii) That it is in the best interest of
the minor for “educational purposes”, as [Druckenmiller]
could not articulate the detrimental [e]ffect the minor
child’s birth date has on his educational opportunities.
Druckenmiller filed timely appeals on the children’s behalf,
which we moved to our docket. 2 The appeals were consolidated
for purposes of oral argument and disposition.
For simplicity, we will refer to the appealing parties collec-
tively as “Druckenmiller” from here on.
2 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).

- 812 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER
Cite as 316 Neb. 807
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Druckenmiller assigns, consolidated and restated, that the
district court erred in (1) finding it lacked jurisdiction to
“correct” the children’s birth dates and (2) determining that
changing the birth dates was not in the children’s best inter-
ests. We need not address both assignments because our deci-
sion on Druckenmiller’s first claim resolves the appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1,2] A jurisdictional question that does not involve a fac-
tual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of
law. 3 An appellate court independently reviews questions of
law decided by a lower court. 4
ANALYSIS
[3] These cases present the question whether a district
court, in a name change proceeding, has the power to change
an adoptive child’s birth date in a situation where the child
was given an “arbitrarily chosen” birth date on a foreign
adoption certificate, which in turn was reflected on a federal
certificate of citizenship. The district court found that it lacked
jurisdiction to do so. Druckenmiller contends otherwise. It
is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has
jurisdiction over the matter before it. 5
No Statutory Authority
The district court concluded—and Druckenmiller concedes—
there was no explicit statutory authority to change the chil-
dren’s birth dates in the name change proceedings. We agree.
3 A & P II v. Lancaster Cty. Bd. of Equal., ante p. 216, 3 N.W.3d 907
(2024).
4 Clason v. LOL Investments, ante p. 91, 3 N.W.3d 94 (2024).
5 First Tennessee Bank Nat. Assn. v. Newham, 290 Neb. 273, 859 N.W.2d
569 (2015).

- 813 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER
Cite as 316 Neb. 807
The general grant of jurisdiction in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-302
(Reissue 2016) provides that “[t]he district courts shall have
and exercise general, original and appellate jurisdiction in
all matters, both civil and criminal, except where otherwise
provided.” The Legislature has provided a number of spe-
cific statutory grants of jurisdiction, including jurisdiction in
name change proceedings. 6 But there is no explicit statutory
authority to change a minor child’s birth date under the name
change statutes. 7
[4,5] In the absence of anything to the contrary, we adhere
to the principle that statutory language is to be given its plain
and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort
to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words
which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. 8 We hold that under
the plain language of §§ 25-21,270 to 25-21,273, a district
court, exercising jurisdiction in a name change case, has no
power to decide whether a minor child’s birth date should
be changed.
For completeness, we note that another statutory scheme
may be relevant, though it does not apply here. Druckenmiller
seems to believe that “Vital Records”—which we understand
to refer to DHHS—has the authority to make the requested
birth date changes with a “court order.” This may be an
oversimplification.
Nebraska’s 	vital 	statistics 	statutes 9 —which 	govern 	the
registration, reporting, and certification of vital events in
Nebraska—cannot be read to grant any authority to amend
foreign adoption certificates or federal certificates of citizen-
ship. But those statutes do set forth a procedure for obtaining
6 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-21,270 to 25-21,273 (Reissue 2016 & Cum.
Supp. 2022).
7 See id.
8 Saint James Apt. Partners v. Universal Surety Co., ante p. 419, 5 N.W.3d
179 (2024).
9 See §§ 71-601 to 71-649.

- 814 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER
Cite as 316 Neb. 807
an adoptive birth certificate in this situation, which requires
first obtaining an adoption decree in a Nebraska court. 10
Because the county courts have exclusive original jurisdiction
over adoption proceedings, 11 only those courts would have the
authority to enter a decree used to obtain an adoptive birth
certificate. We express no opinion regarding the merits of any
attempt by Druckenmiller to comply with that procedure.
Purported Constitutional Authority
In 	the 	absence 	of 	any 	explicit 	statutory 	authority,
Druckenmiller relies upon Neb. Const. art. V, § 9, in argu-
ing that the district court had the authority to change the
children’s birth dates in the name change proceedings. We
disagree.
[6,7] Article V, § 9, of the Nebraska Constitution states that
“[t]he district courts shall have both chancery and common
law jurisdiction, and such other jurisdiction as the Legislature
may provide . . . .” We have said that article V, § 9, of the
Nebraska Constitution confers equity jurisdiction upon the
district courts. 12 If a court of equity has properly acquired
jurisdiction of a suit for equitable relief, it may make complete
adjudication of all matters properly presented and involved
in the case and grant relief, legal or equitable, as may be
required and thus avoid unnecessary litigation. 13
[8] Here, Druckenmiller broadly contends that the instant
cases are “in equity,” without pointing to a recognized source
of equity jurisdiction. It is well settled that an action in equity
must be founded on some recognized source of equity juris-
diction. 14 A few examples include civil actions for injunctive
10 See §§ 71-626 and 71-627.02.
11 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-517(11) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
12 Charleen J. v. Blake O., 289 Neb. 454, 855 N.W.2d 587 (2014).
13 Schmid v. Simmons, 311 Neb. 48, 970 N.W.2d 735 (2022).
14 In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Maronica B., 314 Neb. 597, 992
N.W.2d 457 (2023).

- 815 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER
Cite as 316 Neb. 807
relief 15 or for partition, 16 proceedings for the supervision of the
administration of trusts, 17 divorce cases, 18 and issues of child
custody. 19 Because the instant cases did not implicate a recog-
nized source of equity jurisdiction, we reject Druckenmiller’s
argument that the Nebraska Constitution granted the district
court the authority to change the children’s birth dates in the
name change proceedings.
[9] We also reject the notion that a court of equity may
provide relief in a purely statutory proceeding beyond that
provided or necessarily implied in the statute. 20 We have
said that in dealing with legal rights, a court of equity adopts
and follows the rules of law in all cases to which those rules
are applicable, and whenever there is an explicit statute or a
direct rule of law governing the case in all its circumstances,
a court of equity is as much bound by it as would be a court
of law. 21
[10,11] Stated differently, a court’s equitable powers cannot
be used to provide relief that is contrary to statutory or con-
stitutional requirements, 22 and “[c]ourts of equity can no more
15 See, Omaha Fish and Wildlife Club, Inc. v. Community Refuse, Inc., 208
Neb. 110, 302 N.W.2d 379 (1981); Village of Springfield v. Hevelone, 195
Neb. 37, 236 N.W.2d 811 (1975).
16 See In re Estate of Kentopp. Kentopp v. Kentopp, 206 Neb. 776, 295
N.W.2d 275 (1980).
17 See, In re Trust Estate of Myers, 151 Neb. 255, 37 N.W.2d 228 (1949);
Burnham v. Bennison, 121 Neb. 291, 236 N.W. 745 (1931); Matteson v.
Creighton University, 105 Neb. 219, 179 N.W. 1009 (1920).
18 See, Drennen v. Drennen, 229 Neb. 204, 426 N.W.2d 252 (1988); Wassung
v. Wassung, 136 Neb. 440, 286 N.W. 340 (1939).
19 See, Benjamin M. v. Jeri S., 307 Neb. 733, 950 N.W.2d 381 (2020);
Charleen J. v. Blake O., supra note 12; Susan L. v. Steven L., 273 Neb. 24,
729 N.W.2d 35 (2007).
20 See 30A C.J.S. Equity § 4 (2019).
21 Guy Dean’s Lake Shore Marina v. Ramey, 246 Neb. 258, 518 N.W.2d 129
(1994).
22 See Foster v. Com’r of Correction, 484 Mass. 1059, 146 N.E.3d 408
(2020).

- 816 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
316 Nebraska Reports
IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF DRUCKENMILLER
Cite as 316 Neb. 807
disregard statutory and constitutional requirements and provi-
sions than can courts of law.” 23 A court acting in equity may
not provide for nonlegal, equitable remedies to avoid unduly
harsh application of a statute. 24
[12] In these appeals, we conclude that the district court
lacked jurisdiction over the birth date issue in the name change
proceedings. Our disposition does not permit us to reach the
merits of the birth date change requests. When a trial court
lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of a claim, issue,
or question, an appellate court also lacks the power to deter-
mine the merits of the claim, issue, or question presented to
the lower court. 25 We express no opinion regarding any other
avenues of relief that might be available.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot conclude that the
district court had the authority to decide the birth date change
requests in these name change proceedings. We affirm the dis-
trict court’s decrees.
Affirmed.
23 Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 327-28, 135 S.
Ct. 1378, 191 L. Ed. 2d 471 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
24 See Stokes v. Millen Roofing Co., 466 Mich. 660, 649 N.W.2d 371 (2002).
25 State ex rel. Malone v. Baldonado-Bellamy, 307 Neb. 549, 950 N.W.2d 81
(2020).