Dole v. Dole, A-16-1165, A-16-1166

Kathleen and John Dole divorced in 2005; John had primary custody of two children and Kathleen retained parenting time.
In Aug 2015 Kathleen sought modification (custody or increased parenting time, possible relocation); John counterclaimed seeking supervised parenting time and child support, alleging Kathleen violated prior orders.
At a July 29, 2016 pretrial the parties told the court they had reached an agreement resolving remaining issues, but the terms were never placed on the record that day.
John later submitted a proposed order; the district court entered a modification on Nov 14, 2016 adopting those terms (with a minor addition) and suspended Kathleen’s regular parenting time, ordering "therapeutic parenting time" consistent with a therapist’s recommendations and weekly phone contact.
Kathleen objected at a Nov 10 hearing only on the ground John had reneged on the alleged agreement; she appealed, arguing the court erred in entering the final order without evidence of agreement and improperly delegated visitation decisions to a therapist.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dole)	Defendant's Argument (John)	Held
Whether the district court abused discretion by entering a final modification order based on an alleged off-the-record agreement without evidence or findings	Dole said no evidence or record of the agreement existed and John breached it, so the court erred entering the order	John said parties reached a valid agreement and the court properly entered an order reflecting it	Court: Dole failed to preserve objections except the breach claim; no preserved error as to entry of the order on most terms — affirmed as to child support, fees, and contempt dismissal
Whether the court improperly delegated visitation decisions by ordering "therapeutic parenting time" consistent with therapist recommendations	Dole said the order unlawfully delegated the court’s independent duty to determine visitation based on children’s best interests	John argued the therapeutic provision stemmed from the parties’ settlement and is enforceable as a stipulation	Court: Reversed — the order impermissibly delegated the court’s visitation authority to a therapist; remanded for further proceedings on parenting time

Hopkins v. Hopkins, 294 Neb. 417, 883 N.W.2d 363 (standard of review for modification)
Deacon v. Deacon, 207 Neb. 193, 297 N.W.2d 757 (court may not delegate visitation determinations to a psychologist)
Fine v. Fine, 261 Neb. 839, 626 N.W.2d 526 (children’s best interests control custody/visitation)
Bevins v. Gettman, 13 Neb. App. 555, 697 N.W.2d 698 (stipulations enforced absent public policy problems)
Lautenschlager v. Lautenschlager, 201 Neb. 741, 272 N.W.2d 40 (court’s independent inquiry required despite party stipulations)