Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court transferring sole legal and physical custody over C.J. to Duke Jaeger, subject to Stacey Jaeger's parenting time, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by moving C.J. to Duke's sole legal and physical custody; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Stacy's testimony about previous abuse allegations; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Stacey's motion for a new trial. View "Jaeger v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court ordering Timothy Weiland to pay Ann Weiland a fixed award of $465 per month for military pension benefits and to pay Ann her share of Timothy's retirement benefits had had received and not paid to Ann, holding that the district court erred when it assigned a fixed monthly dollar value.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that under the parties' divorce decree, the district court erred when it assigned a fixed monthly dollar value to Ann's interest in Timothy's military retirement benefits. Ann was entitled to an award of military pension benefits and back payments, but the fixed monthly benefit award and the fixed monthly amount of back payments was vacated. The Court reversed and remanded with directions to determine the equitable distribution of Timothy's military retirement expressed as a formula that adheres to the points awarded in the decree and consistent with a hypothetical retirement date as of the date of the decree. View "Weiland v. Weiland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying several provisions of a judgment establishing custody, visitation, and support of minor children based on the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis, holding that the correct modification standard was applied.In its order, the district court found a material change in circumstances and modified several provisions pertaining to the support of the minor children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) judgments establishing in loco parentis rights regarding the custody, visitation, and support of a minor child ordinarily will not be modified absent a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the child, but whether the in loco parentis relationship has changed is relevant to determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances and whether modification is in the child's best interests; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a material change in circumstances justified modifying support-related provisions concerning the minor children. View "Windham v. Kroll" on Justia Law

In case No. S-20-009, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the juvenile court denying Father's motion for placement, and in case No. S-20-244, affirmed the order of adjudication of the child over Father's objection, holding that the juvenile court erred in finding Father unfit and in denying his parental preference for physical custody.The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services was given temporary custody of the child and placed him in temporary foster care. After Father became aware that the child was in foster care he moved for temporary physical placement. The juvenile court denied the motion and proceeded with adjudication of the child. In case No. S-20-009, Father appealed the denial of his motion for placement. In case No. S-20-244, Father argued that his appeal in case No. S-20-009 divested the juvenile court of jurisdiction to issue the adjudication. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the order denying Father's motion for placement, holding that because Father was not given notice that his fitness or forfeiture were to be adjudicated at the hearing on his motion for placement, the juvenile court could not properly deprive him of his right to custody under the parental preference doctrine; and (2) affirmed the order of adjudication in case No. S-20-244, holding that the order of adjudication was not void. View "In re Interest of A.A." on Justia Law

In this marital dissolution action, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals to the extent it affirmed the district court's disposition of Husband's 401K accounts, holding that the court of appeals and the district court erred in their application of the active appreciation rule.In its dissolution decree, the district court found that Wife should be awarded $10,500 from a 401K account owned by Husband but otherwise awarded Husband all funds in his retirement and investment accounts. The court of appeals affirmed the decree. The Supreme Court reversed in part, arguing that although the value of the 401K account at issue at the time of the parties' marriage was Husband's nonmarital property, under the active appreciation rule, the growth in that account during the marriage was marital. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the increase in the value of the 401K account should have been treated as marital property subject to equitable division, and the lower courts abused their discretion in finding otherwise. View "Higgins v. Currier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court dismissing Benjamin M.'s amended complaint seeking to establish custody, support, and parenting time, holding that the district court erred in failing to give proper legal effect to the two notarized acknowledgments of paternity Benjamin filed contemporaneously with his amended complaint.Benjamin and Jeri were the parents of two minor children, F.M. and L.M. The parents executed notarized acknowledgments of paternity for each child. Benjamin later filed a complaint seeking to establish paternity, child support, and parenting time. Jeri moved to dismiss the action as time-barred. Thereafter, Benjamin filed an amended complaint to establish child custody, child support, and parenting time and offered into evidence certified copies of the notarized acknowledgements of paternity for both children. The district court dismissed the case as being time-barred. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding (1) where there is a properly executed and unchallenged acknowledgment of paternity, an action for establishment of paternity should be treated solely as an action to determine the issues of custody and support; and (2) the district court erred in failing to give proper legal effect to the signed, notarized acknowledgments of paternity in this case. View "Benjamin M. v. Jeri S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the juvenile court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported termination of parental rights.After a termination hearing, the juvenile court entered an order terminating Mother's parental rights, finding that the State proved grounds for termination under Neb. Stat. 43-292(2), (4), and (6) as to both children and that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the juvenile court erred in determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State adduced clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests and that the State proved a statutory ground for termination. View "In re Interest of Leyton C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the dissolution decree in this case, holding that the no-fault divorce statutory scheme governing dissolution found at Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-347 to 42-381 is not unconstitutional.On appeal from the dissolution decree, Defendant argued that, by virtue of establishing no-fault divorce, the statutory scheme deprives defendants in dissolution actions of procedural due process and constitutes special legislation in favor of plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 42-347(3) does not violate the procedural due process provisions of the United States and Nebraska Constitutions; and (2) section 42-347(3) does not constitute special legislation granting divorces. View "Dycus v. Dycus" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court granting Gerald F.'s petition to be appointed guardian and conservator of a minor child and ordering Gerald to pay the guardian ad litem's (GAL) reasonable fees and costs, holding that the court acted within its statutory authority.After Gerald filed his petition to be appointed guardian and conservator he moved for the appointment of a GAL to represent the interests of the minor child. The motion was sustained by the county court. After a trial, the court granted Gerald's petition to be appointed the child's guardian and conservator. The county court subsequently determined that Gerald must pay the GAL's fees and costs. Gerald appealed, arguing that the order to pay fees and costs was not statutorily authorized. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court's order was authorized under Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-2643. View "In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of J.F." on Justia Law

After Appellant appealed an order of the district court finding him in contempt of court and modifying terms of a parenting plan, the Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal from an order of commitment and a purge order containing a reduction in Appellant's parenting time, holding that, as to the first appeal, there was no abuse of discretion, and that, as to the second appeal, there was no final order.The district court found Appellant in contempt of court for violating parenting provisions of a dissolution decree, imposed a suspended jail sentence, and modified terms of the parenting plan in this case. Appellant appealed this order. While the appeal was pending, the court entered an order of commitment and a purge order reducing Appellant's parenting time but setting the matter for a future review hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed as to the first appeal and dismissed the second appeal for lack of a final order, holding (1) the modifications at issue in the first appeal were part of the equitable relief the court had the authority to provide; and (2) the second appeal was not taken from a final order. View "Yori v. Helms" on Justia Law