at 13. The Savages’ argument is that the district court’s interpretation “simply excises Section 43-104.06 from the statute books.” Brief for appellants at 13. The Savages claim that the parental preference rule in Stuhr v. Stuhr, 240 Neb. 239, 481 N.W.2d 212 (1992), was abrogated when Martin invoked § 43-104.06(2) in his request for custody. We cannot agree with this argument. The Stuhr court held that in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, in a child custody controversy between a biological or adoptive parent and one who is neither a biological nor an adoptive parent of the child involved in the controversy, a fit biological or adoptive parent has a superior right to custody of the child. See, also, Cavanaugh v. deBaudiniere, 1 Neb. App. 204, 493 N.W.2d 197 (1992) (<HOLDING>). We are convinced that § 43-104.06 does not
holding that publicagency adoption termination of mentallyill biological parents rights that mandated visitation between biological parent and child inappropriate because applicable termination statutes spoke in absolute terms noting however that continued contact between biological parent and child possible on voluntary basis without court order holding that unmarried father is entitled to show that he could not have reasonably expected his biological child to be born in utah after biological mother left california immediately prior to childs birth without informing father where birth would occur holding that the issue of custody was foreign to the dissolution action because the husband was not the natural father but that the husband could seek to intervene to assert a thirdparty custody claim in a pending custody modification proceeding between the childs natural parents holding that biological parents have a prima facie right to custody over third persons holding that although husband and wife were both fit and proper persons to have custody of the child custody in a dissolution action should have been awarded to wife the biological parent in light of blood test showing that husband was not the childs biological father