Alicia K. v. Garrett S., A-16-630, A-16-635

Mother (Alicia) and father (Garrett) are unmarried parents of two young children (Brayden b.2012; Bryce b.2014); temporary orders awarded Alicia sole custody and child support to Garrett.
Parents had a highly conflictual relationship with police involvement and a prior protection order; Garrett had periods of incarceration and intermittent residence with children.
Alicia sought to relocate the children from Nebraska to Missouri to attend an accelerated BSN program at the University of Central Missouri; she argued this was the fastest and most affordable path to a stable nursing career.
Trial court awarded Alicia permanent legal and physical custody, permitted the move to Missouri, and set parenting time for Garrett; Garrett appealed only the relocation determination.
Trial evidence showed Alicia as the children’s primary caregiver, that Missouri offered lower tuition, existing credits, better schools and cheaper childcare; Garrett claimed the move would frustrate his access.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Garrett)	Defendant's Argument (Alicia)	Held
Whether district court erred in permitting Alicia to remove children to Missouri	Move masks intent to deny Garrett regular access; removal not in children’s best interests	Move is for legitimate career/education reasons that will improve children’s quality of life; maintained meaningful visitation	Court affirmed: Alicia had legitimate reason and move was in children’s best interests
Whether Farnsworth removal framework applied in initial custody determination	Farnsworth should constrain removal analysis	Farnsworth factors usable as part of best-interests review though not strict test here	Court applied Farnsworth factors as guidance and found no error
Whether relocation would prevent Garrett from maintaining meaningful relationship	Relocation would substantially reduce day-to-day involvement and visitation	Parenting time awarded annually is nearly equal and meaningful relationship can continue despite distance	Court held parenting time preserved a meaningful relationship; factor did not preclude move
Whether move enhances children’s quality of life	Move would harm parent-child ties and disrupt stability	Move offers educational, financial, and housing advantages and reduces parental conflict	Court found move likely to enhance children’s quality of life and reduce parental contact/conflict

Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999) (articulates three-factor framework for removal: parent motives, enhancement of quality of life, impact on contact)
Coleman v. Kahler, 17 Neb. App. 518, 766 N.W.2d 142 (2009) (Farnsworth factors may be considered in initial custody determinations for unmarried parents)
Derby v. Martinez, 24 Neb. App. 17, 879 N.W.2d 58 (2016) (extends analysis of legitimate reason for removal in initial custody contexts)
Hiller v. Hiller, 23 Neb. App. 768, 876 N.W.2d 685 (2016) (move’s effect on child’s emotional, physical, and developmental needs is a key consideration)