Blank v. Blank
303 Neb. 602
| Neb. | 2019Background
- Marissa and Caleb Blank divorced after a custody trial over their two minor children; Marissa sought sole custody while Caleb sought sole or, alternatively, joint custody.
- Prior filings included Marissa’s complaint requesting joint legal custody and Caleb’s proposed parenting plans (signed by both) seeking joint legal and physical custody; Caleb also moved for temporary joint custody and temporary orders initially gave Marissa temporary legal and physical custody.
- At trial both parents testified about their caregiving roles: Marissa described herself as primary caretaker; Caleb testified they shared responsibilities and that he was willing to co-parent and vaccinate the children in the future.
- Caleb admitted to an “open hand smack” of Marissa long ago and to punching holes in a basement wall during an argument; no medical injury, fear, or pattern of abuse was shown at trial.
- The district court awarded joint legal and physical custody, split final decisionmaking authority for education (Marissa) and health/religion (Caleb), found joint custody was in the children’s best interests, and determined the case did not meet Nebraska’s statutory definition of domestic intimate partner abuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Marissa) | Defendant's Argument (Caleb) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could award joint physical custody without advance notice when neither party requested it | Court erred; neither party requested joint physical custody before trial, so Marissa lacked notice and opportunity to present evidence on joint custody | Joint custody was raised in pleadings and proposed parenting plans and at temporary-orders stage; parties had notice and litigated the issue at trial | No error. Prior filings and trial testimony gave reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard; joint custody was properly considered |
| Whether court should have treated matter as "domestic intimate partner abuse" requiring special written findings | Testimony that Caleb slapped Marissa and punched walls showed domestic abuse and triggered statutory special findings before awarding custody | Incidents did not establish the statutory elements: no proof of bodily injury, fear, or a pattern/history of abuse | No abuse finding required. Record lacked evidence of bodily injury, intent, or a pattern/history to meet statutory definition; special findings not required |
| Whether evidence supported award of joint custody as being in children’s best interests | Marissa argued the relationship had sufficient conflict and she was primary caretaker, so joint custody would harm children | Caleb argued parents cooperated under temporary order, share parenting duties, and he was willing to co-parent | No abuse of discretion. Trial record supported that parents could cooperate and joint custody served the children’s best interests |
| Whether allocation of final decisionmaking authority (education vs. health/religion) was improper under joint custody | Marissa contended the court’s split final authority conflicts with joint custody principles | Court may allocate final decisionmaking in specific areas to avoid impasses while preserving joint legal custody | Proper. Court acted within discretion to assign final authority in limited areas to prevent future deadlocks |
Key Cases Cited
- Erin W. v. Charissa W., 297 Neb. 143 (discussing de novo review of custody determinations and appellate deference)
- Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043 (trial court may not impose joint custody without notice when parties litigate sole custody)
- Hill v. Hill, 20 Neb. App. 528 (similar holding to Zahl regarding notice before imposing joint custody)
- Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76 (due process and procedural notice principles)
- Whitesides v. Whitesides, 290 Neb. 116 (custody standard and appellate review)
- Donald v. Donald, 296 Neb. 123 (criteria for reserving joint custody for mature, cooperative parents)
- Leners v. Leners, 302 Neb. 904 (court may order joint custody without parental agreement if in child's best interests)