Boyer v. Boyer
A-16-150
| Neb. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Parties divorced in California (2013); Lauren was awarded physical custody of the parties’ son Micah (born 2010) and the parties retained joint legal custody.
- After divorce Lauren and Micah lived in Bellevue, Nebraska with Lauren’s parents; Jason (appellant) lived in California until his honorable discharge in 2014 and then moved to Nebraska to be near Micah and has since become more involved in parenting.
- Lauren became an LPN, met and married Collin (who lives in Nenana, Alaska) in 2015, and sought permission to relocate with Micah to Alaska; she was also reportedly pregnant.
- Jason filed to register the California decree in Nebraska and sought modification to prevent the move or obtain custody if Lauren relocated; Lauren counterclaimed seeking permission to remove the child to Alaska and primary physical custody.
- Trial court granted Lauren permission to remove Micah to Alaska, retained joint legal custody but gave Lauren final decisionmaking authority on major decisions until Dec. 31, 2017; Jason appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jason) | Defendant's Argument (Lauren) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lauren had a legitimate reason to leave Nebraska | Marriage to Collin is not a legitimate ground here because they met online, did not meet in Nebraska, and Collin’s move is not for career reasons | Remarriage (and pregnancy) are legitimate reasons to relocate to live with spouse | Remarriage is a legitimate reason; court affirmed legitimacy of removal request |
| Whether removal is in child’s best interests | Move would severely reduce Jason’s in-person parenting, weakening bond; insufficient evidence move enhances child’s life | Move would improve housing, allow living with stepfather and possible job for Lauren; Lauren is primary caregiver — move serves child’s best interests | On de novo review court found move would enhance child’s quality of life despite reduced contact; removal is in Micah’s best interests |
| Admissibility of Exhibit 39 (purported job offer) | Exhibit 39 was hearsay/lacked foundation; should be excluded | Offered to show Lauren received an offer (not for truth) | Even if admission was error, any error was harmless because the exhibit did not establish a permanent job or income enhancement |
| Court’s temporary allocation of final decisionmaking authority until Jan 1, 2018 | No basis for delaying return to joint legal custody; error to limit rights | Temporary final authority needed because of current animosity and communication problems | Court did not change joint legal custody; it reasonably granted Lauren temporary final decisionmaking authority until Dec 31, 2017 |
Key Cases Cited
- Vogel v. Vogel, 262 Neb. 1030 (recognizes remarriage as common legitimate reason for removal)
- Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin, 288 Neb. 240 (absent ulterior motive, desire to live with spouse outside jurisdiction is legitimate)
- Dragon v. Dragon, 21 Neb. App. 228 (establishes two-step removal test: legitimate reason, then best interests inquiry)
- Wild v. Wild, 15 Neb. App. 717 (motivations evaluated to detect attempts to frustrate/ manipulate other parent)
- Maranville v. Dworak, 17 Neb. App. 245 (educational-advantage factor has little weight absent proof of superiority)
- Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529 (discusses balancing custodial parent’s opportunity against noncustodial parent’s relationship; deference to trial court in relocation cases)