Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The marriage of Mother and Father was dissolved, and Mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ two minor children. Father was ordered to pay child support. Father subsequently filed a complaint for modification of custody seeking sole custody of the children or, in the alternative, joint legal and physical custody of the children. After a hearing, the district court awarded the parties joint physical custody and placed legal custody with the court. The Supreme Court vacated the order of modification and remanded, holding that the district court abused its discretion in making a custody determination without making special written findings regarding Father’s conviction of third degree domestic assault in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-2932. View "Flores v. Flores-Guerrero" on Justia Law

Jason and Stacy’s marriage was dissolved by a decree entered in 2011. Jason was required to pay child support for three minor children. In 2013, Jason obtained genetic testing which established that he was not the father of the youngest child. Jason sought equitable relief in the form of an order suspending his child support obligation without actually terminating the parental relationship. The district court denied the requested relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its judgment where there is no statute allowing a court to suspend Jason’s obligation to pay child support without affecting the legal determination of paternity. View "Stacy M. v. Jason M." on Justia Law

Dwight Whitesides and Linda Whitesides’ marriage was dissolved pursuant to a dissolution decree entered in 2012. The court entered its decree reflecting a stipulation entered into by the parties regarding the disposition of Dwight’s interest in a partnership. In 2013, Dwight moved to alter or amend the decree of dissolution, contending that division of the partnership interest could not be accomplished. The district court overruled the motion but made findings regarding the interest’s assignability and Dwight’s compliance with the decree. Linda appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the the district court’s findings deprived Linda of due process, and therefore, the extraneous findings were struck as surplusage. View "Whitesides v. Whitesides" on Justia Law

Upon learning that the parties’ child had relocated with Mother to New York, Father filed a complaint in the district court seeking an award of legal and physical custody of the child. Mother filed an answer and a counterclaim seeking permission to move the child to New York. The district court denied Mother’s request to move the child to New York, awarded primary physical custody of the child to Father, removed restrictions on Grandmother’s visitation with the child, and calculated Mother’s child support obligation. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the district court abused its discretion in denying Mother permission to move the child to New York and in awarding physical custody of the child to Father. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its resolution of these two issues in favor of Father. View "Schrag v. Spear" on Justia Law

Abigail Despain and William Despain were married in June 2012. Abigail filed a complaint for the dissolution of the marriage in August 2012. After a trial, the district court filed a decree of dissolution of marriage, including orders regarding property division. Before the decree was filed, William filed a motion for new trial challenging the district court’s division of property. After the decree was filed, the court filed an order overruling William’s motion for new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) William’s motion for new trial was an effective filing, and the appeal was timely; and (2) with respect to property division, the district court erred in the method it employed when it calculated the equalization payment owed by William to Abigail. View "Despain v. Despain" on Justia Law

Upon dissolving the marriage of Mother and Father, the district court gave Father custody of the parties’ minor child. Father later moved to modify the amount of child support Mother paid, alleging that Mother’s income had materially increased. The district court increased Mother’s support obligation after allowing a deduction for Mother’s subsequent child and giving Mother a credit for the cost of health insurance premiums. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by applying a deduction for Mother’s subsequent child; but (2) abused its discretion by giving Mother a credit for the amount that Mother paid for family health insurance coverage. Remanded. View "Schwartz v. Schwartz" on Justia Law

When Alexander was approximately twelve years old, he was placed in a program with Envisions of Norfolk, Inc. The juvenile court ordered that Alexander remain in the Envisions program until further order of the court. Less than two months later, Alexander was moved into a new foster home without further order of the court and without notice. The juvenile court found the Department of Health and Human Services and Nebraska Families Collaborative in contempt of court and ordered them to pay a fine of $5,000 or purge the contempt by complying with certain conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court (1) did not abuse its discretion in finding the Department to be in contempt of court; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction. View "In re Interest of Zachary D." on Justia Law

Rhonda was the mother and sole surviving parent of Benjamin, a twenty-two-year-old incapacitated adult. Rhonda filed a petition for the appointment of a guardian for Benjamin and nominated herself as guardian. The county court appointed an unrelated individual as Benjamin’s guardian without making findings or providing an explanation for passing over Rhonda. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appointment was arbitrary and capricious, as the county court appointed the unrelated individual as Benjamin’s guardian without specific findings, any explanation for bypassing Rhonda’s statutory priority for appointment, or any reason readily apparent in the evidentiary record. View "In re Guardianship of Benjamin E." on Justia Law

Mother, on behalf of her minor child, filed a petition for a domestic abuse protection order against Father. The district court issued an ex parte domestic abuse protection order. The evidence against Father included text messages with vulgar language and name calling. Upon a show cause hearing on the ex parte order, the district court upheld its domestic abuse protection order. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court incorrectly granted a domestic abuse protection order, as Father’s conduct did not fit within the statutory definition of “abuse”; and (2) because the case was tried on the domestic abuse theory, Mother could not change to a harassment theory on appeal. View "Linda N. v. William N." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individually and as guardians and next friends on behalf of their seven minor children, sued the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), several DHHS employees in their official and individual capacities, and the children’s guardian ad litem, alleging that over the course of the juvenile proceedings involving their oldest three children, Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights had been violated. The district court sustained Defendants’ motions do dismiss, concluding (1) Defendants were entitled to sovereign, qualified, absolute, and statutory immunities; and (2) Plaintiffs’ claims against the DHHS employees in their individual capacities were barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in dismissing the claims against the DHHS, the DHHS employees in their official capacities, and the guardian ad litem on the basis that they were immune from Plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims; and (2) did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against the DHHS employees in their individual capacities on the grounds that the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. View "Anthony K. v. Neb. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law