Caniglia v. Caniglia, 285 Neb. 930

Cynthia Caniglia and Jason Caniglia divorced by consent decree in June 2010; the decree required Jason to pay $722 monthly child support and to share 50 percent of extraordinary expenses under § 42-364.17.
Jason became unemployed after the decree; he filed a petition to modify the decree, seeking changes to child support and to extraordinary and childcare expenses.
District court modified the decree: Jason’s child support reduced to $375 per month; daycare contribution reduced to 36 percent; extraordinary expenses remained at 50 percent but with a condition restricting further expenses without the noncustodial parent’s approval.
The court found a material change in circumstances supporting a reduction in Jason’s income and child support; evidence showed Kellogg did not reinstate him after a medical leave and his benefits were terminated.
Cynthia appealed, challenging (a) modification of the extraordinary-expenses provision, (b) the change in child-support and childcare contributions, and (c) modification to require Jason’s approval for extraordinary expenses.
Appellate review affirmed the modification, holding extraordinary expenses are modifiable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing credible evidence regarding employment and Cynthia’s use of expenses to burden Jason.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are extraordinary expenses modifiable under § 42-364.17?	Caniglia: no modification allowed; extraordinary expenses fixed.	Caniglia: extraordinary expenses are modifiable as part of child-support framework.	Yes; extraordinary expenses may be modified.
Was there a change in circumstances warranting modified child support and childcare contributions?	Caniglia: unemployment was not properly addressed to justify modification.	Caniglia: there was a material change in circumstances justifying reduction.	There was a change in circumstances justifying modification.
May a court modify the custodial-parent decisionmaking authority for extraordinary expenses based on credibility of evidence?	Caniglia: custodial parent should decide expenses without needing the other parent’s approval.	Caniglia: court may condition expenses on both parents’ approval when circumstances warrant.	Yes; court may require mutual approval for additional extraordinary expenses.

Metcalf v. Metcalf, 278 Neb. 258 (2009) (modification of child support and related provisions grounded in changing circumstances)
Inconto v. Jacobs, 277 Neb. 275 (2009) (supports modifying child-support-related provisions under evolving circumstances)
Wulff v. Wulff, 243 Neb. 616 (1993) (principle that child-related decrees are subject to modification)
Gangwish v. Gangwish, 267 Neb. 901 (2004) (modification of divorce terms involving children permissible)
J.M. v. Hobbs, 281 Neb. 539 (2011) (continues the principle that child-related decrees are modifiable)
Capaldi v. Capaldi, 235 Neb. 892 (1990) (statutory interpretation and application to family-law issues)
Schnell v. Schnell, 12 Neb. App. 321 (2003) (parens patriae and modification principles in parenting disputes)
Moyera v. Quality Pork Internat., 284 Neb. 963 (2013) (modification in light of evolving circumstances under related statutes)
Smith-Helstrom v Yonker, 253 Neb. 189 (1997) (interpretation of support-related duties and accompanying provisions)
Fine v. Fine, 261 Neb. 836 (2001) (guidance on modification of child-related provisions)
Mace v. Mace, 9 Neb. App. 270 (2000) (evidence-based credibility determinations in modification cases)
Marcovitz v. Rogers, 267 Neb. 456 (2004) (broader framework for modifying divorce decrees involving children)
Incontro v. Jacobs, 277 Neb. 275 (2009) (see above; included for emphasis on modification authority)