Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court renewing a domestic abuse protection order, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's finding that renewal of the protection order was necessary to prevent future harm.The domestic abuse protection order at issue issued on March 18, 2020. The protected party was Margaret Garrison, and the order was against her former spouse, Logan Otto. On March 17, 2021 Garrison filed a petition to renew the domestic abuse and protection order. The court issued an ex parte renewal of the ex parte domestic protection order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in ultimately determining that renewal was justified. View "Garrison v. Otto" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the provisions of a district court order that found Mark Becher in contempt for failure to pay various expenses following his divorce from Sonia Becher, holding that the court's order is modified slightly but that Mark's remaining assignments of error were without merit.On appeal, Mark argued that the district court erred in (1) finding him in contempt for failure to pay for a portion of the children's 2016 medical expenses, real estate taxes, and a wilderness therapy program and requiring Mark to pay for his share of those expenses as part of a purge plan; (2) requiring him to pay for his share of the children's future medical expenses as part of the purge plan; (3) assessing interest; and (4) ordering him to pay Sonia's attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the portion of the order regarding contempt findings and purge provisions related to the children's 2016 medical expenses and future medical expenses must be deleted; and (2) there was no merit to Mark's remaining assignments of error. View "Becher v. Becher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court, which established the paternity of Franklin M. as to the parties' two children and decided issues regarding custody and child support, holding that the district court erred as a matter of law when it applied an improper standard regarding removal.Franklin filed a complaint for paternity, custody, and support seeking to establish custody and support for two children he had with Lauren C. The district court found the Franklin and Lauren were the biological parents of the two children and decided issues regarding child support and custody. The Supreme Court remanded the cause, holding that the district court (1) applied an improper standard regarding removal; and (2) erred when it awarded shared legal and physical custody to Franklin. View "Franklin M. v. Lauren C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court placing physical custody of B.C. with Mother, from whom B.C. had initially been taken, holding that there was no error.B.C. was removed from Mother's home pending adjudication in proceedings following a petition alleging child endangerment. The juvenile court later granted the Department of Health and Human Services' motion for a placement change and ordered that the physical custody of B.C. be placed with Mother upon her completion of certain conditions. The juvenile court also considered and overruled Father's motion for legal custody and placement of B.C. Father appealed, arguing that the order exceeded the juvenile court's authority. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court's order placing B.C. with Mother pursuant to the terms of a transition plan were consistent with this Court's opinion and mandate. View "In re Interest of A.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court that denied Christina C.'s application to modify child custody of her daughter, Daphnie F., holding that the district court's order did not follow the framework set forth in State on behalf of Tina K. v. Adam B., 948 N.W.2d 182 (Neb. 2020).Pursuant to a Colorado custody order, Daphnie was placed in the permanent custody of her paternal grandparents. Christina filed a motion to modify, arguing that she was a fit biological parent who had a right to custody of her child that was superior to that of the child's grandparents standing in loco parentis. The district court denied Christina's motion for new trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court's findings and reasoning were not sufficient under the correct standard set forth in State on behalf of Tina K. View "State ex rel. Daphnie F. v. Christina C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying the decree dissolving the marriage of Matthew Keiser and Krystal Keiser, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.In 2018, a decree dissolved the parties' marriage and awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of their four children. The court also ordered Matthew to pay child support of $2,000 per month. Eight months later, both parties sought to modify the decree, with Father seeking a reduction in child support and Mother seeking an increase. The court found a material change in circumstances regarding custody because Krystal now had sole physical custody of two of the children and ordered Matthew to pay child support of $2,873 per month. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining Matthew's income for child support purposes and that Matthew invited any error in the court's methodology to calculate child support. View "Keiser v. Keiser" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the marital dissolution decree entered by the district court in this case, holding that the court's ultimate division was reasonable and fair.In the marital dissolution decree dissolving the marriage of Marcia Kauk and Randall Kauk, the district court divided the property and awarded Randall the marital homestead acreage. Marcia appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by failing to include certain contracts or payments in the marital estate, classifying four payments as payments of marital debts in valuing marital assets, and awarding the marital acreage to Randall. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its marital asset determinations and in awarding Randall the marital acreage. View "Kauk v. Kauk" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court modifying the decree dissolving the marriage of Donald and Linda Eis, awarding Linda an increased equalization payment of $176,462, holding that there was no error.The district court's decree dissolved the marriage of the parties and divided their real and personal property. Linda later filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and for a new trial. The district court entered a modified decree, awarding Linda an increased equalization payment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Donald's assignments of error were without merit. View "Eis v. Eis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court entering a decree dissolving the marriage of Steve Vanderveer and Joy Vanderveer, dividing their marital estate, awarding alimony to Joy, and deciding issues of custody, child support, and parenting time, holding that the court erred in part.In 2019, Joy filed a complaint for dissolution of her marriage to Steve, with whom she shared two children. After the court entered its dissolution decree both parties moved to alter or amend the decree. The court generally overruled the motions but did modify Steve's parenting time to better accommodate his work schedule. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the decree only as it pertained to the calculation of child support and alimony and otherwise affirmed, holding that the lower court's calculation was erroneous, but in all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. View "Vanderveer v. Vanderveer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Father's motion to modify the custody and parenting time arrangements between the parties, holding that the district court neither abused its discretion in denying the requested modification or in allowing grandparent visitation.The district court previously modified the custody and parenting time provisions in the parties' dissolution decree upon finding that Mother was not properly caring for the parties' child and was using controlled substances. The order of modification granted custody to Father and required Mother's parenting time to be supervised by her parents. The next year, Father moved to modify the order yet again, requesting that Mother's supervised parenting time be indefinitely suspended due to her continued substance abuse. The district court denied the modification and, in a separate order, granted the maternal grandparents' complaint for grandparent visitation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father's complaint to modify; and (2) the grandparent visitation order was not an abuse of discretion. View "Lindblad v. Lindblad" on Justia Law