Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Tina E., the biological aunt and adoptive sister of the father of Joseph C., lacked standing to appeal the juvenile court’s order ruling that Joseph’s placement with his nonrelative foster parents and permanency through adoption by them was in his best interests.On appeal, Tina argued that the juvenile court erred in changing the permanency objective from reunification with her to adoption by the foster parents and in failing to change Joseph’s placement from the foster parents to Tina. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Tina was not entitled to the statutory right to appeal delineated in Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-2,106.01(2). View "In re Interest of Joseph C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s order adjudicating Kane L. and reversed the juvenile court’s order declining to adjudicate Carter L. after Kane and Carter were removed from their family home as a result of methamphetamine use by their parents. .The Court held (1) the county showed an evidentiary nexus between the use of methamphetamine and a risk of harm that would support adjudication, and therefore, the juvenile court did not err in adjudicating Kane; and (2) it was error not to adjudicate Carter because Carter was exposed to the same threat of present harm as Kane. View "In re Interest of Kane L." on Justia Law

In these three consolidated appeals from district court orders in the proceeding for the dissolution of the parties’ marriage, Wallace McCullough appealed an order of contempt for failing to make childcare and property division equalization payments, an order of contempt for failing to pay child support, and an order setting the amount of a supersedeas bond. The Supreme Court (1) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the appeal of the order regarding the amount of the supersedeas bond, holding that the order was not separately appealable; and (2) affirmed the district court’s orders in the two other appeals, thus rejecting Wallace’s assignments of error. View "McCullough v. McCullough" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decree dissolving the marriage of Jennifer Westwood and Cheryl Darnell and dividing their marital estate.After a trial, the district court awarded each party the personal property and automobile in her possession, her separate retirement account, and any bank accounts in her own name. Westwood was also ordered to make an equalization payment to Darnell. Westwood appealed, asserting three assignments of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its division of the parties’ marital property. View "Westwood v. Darnell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court construing the meaning of provisions in a divorce decree and incorporated property settlement agreement (PSA) regarding payment of post-majority child support to require Father to pay post-majority child support if certain conditions were met and denying Father’s request to modify such support. The Court held (1) once a decree for dissolution becomes final, its meaning, including the settlement agreement incorporated therein, is determined as a matter of law from the four corners of the decree itself; (2) the district court did not err in finding that the terms of the decree and incorporated PSA were ambiguous or in construing the decree and incorporated PSA to require Father to pay post-majority child support under certain circumstances; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Father’s complaint to modify the decree. View "Carlson v. Carlson" on Justia Law

In this case involving Father’s child, Fernando, support obligation to his son, the Supreme Court reversed in part the order of the district court recalculating Father’s child support obligation for Fernando.In 2016, Father filed a complaint for a downward modification of his child support obligation to Fernando, originally ordered at $388 per month in 2010. With no tax returns or financial documents in evidence, the district court concluded that Father had not shown a material change in circumstances warranting a reduction in his monthly child support obligation to Fernando. The court also determined that Father’s three “after-born” children could not be used to lower his child support obligation to Fernando. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) there was no error in the district court’s determination regarding taxes; but (2) the district court abused its discretion in basing its child support calculation on an incorrect understanding of the birth order of Father’s children relative to Fernando and Father’s support obligations as required by the 2010 order. View "State ex rel. Fernando L. v. Rogelio L." on Justia Law

In this case involving Father’s child, Fernando, support obligation to his son, the Supreme Court reversed in part the order of the district court recalculating Father’s child support obligation for Fernando.In 2016, Father filed a complaint for a downward modification of his child support obligation to Fernando, originally ordered at $388 per month in 2010. With no tax returns or financial documents in evidence, the district court concluded that Father had not shown a material change in circumstances warranting a reduction in his monthly child support obligation to Fernando. The court also determined that Father’s three “after-born” children could not be used to lower his child support obligation to Fernando. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) there was no error in the district court’s determination regarding taxes; but (2) the district court abused its discretion in basing its child support calculation on an incorrect understanding of the birth order of Father’s children relative to Fernando and Father’s support obligations as required by the 2010 order. View "State ex rel. Fernando L. v. Rogelio L." on Justia Law

In these two consolidated appeals stemming from marital dissolution proceedings, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ determination that a district court must state specific findings in order to set aside or modify a referee’s report authorized by chapter 25 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes as clearly against the weight of the evidence. The Court held that nothing in the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1131 requires explicit findings, and therefore, a district court may implicitly find that a referee’s findings are against the clear weight of the evidence. In the second appeal, the assigned errors flowing from contempt proceedings lacked merit, and therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Becher v. Becher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree issued by the district court, which differed from the court’s previously entered decree of legal separation and included an award of alimony and an award of attorney fees to Wife.After the district court issued a decree of legal separation, Husband filed a motion to amend the complaint from legal separation to dissolution of marriage. The district court filed a decree of dissolution that, among other things, awarded Wife alimony in an amount that equaled the health insurance costs which Husband had been paying under the decree of legal separation. In modifying the legal separation decree, the court determined that it would be necessary for Wife to show a change of circumstances in order to be entitled to an award of alimony in the divorce decree, which Wife had not done. Nonetheless, the district court awarded Wife alimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Wife was not required to show a change of circumstances for purposes of good cause to modify the award of alimony awarded in the decree of legal separation, but any error by the court in its analysis was not prejudicial to Wife; and (2) the district court did not err in awarding Wife one-half of her attorney fees. View "Connolly v. Connolly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the dissolution decree entered by the district court dissolving the marriage of Father and Mother. On appeal, Father argued that the court erred in finding that he was the legal father of one of the children and in ordering him to pay child support for that child and two other children, pursuant to an order for support in a separate case. Specifically, Father argued that the court erred in not making an independent termination regarding child support and attaching a child support calculation worksheet to the decree. The Supreme Court rejected Father’s arguments, holding (1) the existing order of support was res judicata on the issue of Father’s paternity; (2) Father failed to elicit sufficient evidence to warrant a modification of the existing order of support; (3) because the court did not modify the existing order of support, it was not required to attach a worksheet to its decree; and (4) Father’s remaining arguments on appeal were without merit. View "Fetherkile v. Fetherkile" on Justia Law