Floerchinger v. Floerchinger
883 N.W.2d 419
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Brayden Floerchinger's custody originated in Nebraska via a 2003 dissolution decree granting Stacey legal custody with Mark having visitation; Brayden and Stacey then lived in Maine while Mark resided in Nebraska.
- Mark filed a 2013 modification alleging Brayden desired to reside with him in Nebraska; Stacey objected to Nebraska's continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and Maine as Brayden's home state.
- The district court issued a temporary custody order shifting primary custody to Mark with Brayden living in Nebraska, pending full evidentiary proceedings.
- A May 2014 trial, with Brayden and both parents testifying, led the court to find a material change in circumstances and to award joint legal custody with Mark having primary physical custody; no child support was ordered.
- On appeal, Stacey challenged (i) continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, (ii) the propriety of the temporary custody order, and (iii) the finding of a material change in circumstances; the court affirmed observing proper jurisdiction and no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nebraska properly exercised continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. | Stacey contends Nebraska lacked continuing jurisdiction; Maine was Brayden's home state. | Floerchinger argues Nebraska retained jurisdiction due to Brayden's significant connection and substantial evidence here. | Yes; Nebraska properly exercised continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting temporary custody before a full evidentiary hearing. | Stacey argues temporary custody was improper under Jack v. Clinton. | Mark asserts temporary order pending trial is permissible in custody modifications. | No abuse of discretion; temporary custody upheld as part of ongoing proceedings. |
| Whether there was a material change in circumstances justifying custody modification. | Stacey alleges no substantial change warranting modification and questions Brayden's preference. | Mark asserts Brayden's articulated preference to live with him and other factors justify modification. | No abuse; de novo review supports material change and Brayden's best interests favor modification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Watson, 272 Neb. 647 (2006) (jurisdiction review and continuing jurisdiction considerations under NCCJA/UCCJEA)
- White v. White, 271 Neb. 43 (2006) (home-state and best-interests framework for initial custody decisions)
- Zach (State ex rel. Grape v. Zach), 247 Neb. 29 (1994) (significant-connection analysis under NCCJA when home state is not Nebraska)
- Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98 (2015) (standard governing modification of custody and deference to trial-court findings in contested cases)
- State on behalf of Jakai C. v. Tiffany M., 292 Neb. 68 (2015) (burden-shifting framework: material change in circumstances and best interests)
- Jack v. Clinton, 259 Neb. 198 (2000) (temporary custody/removal considerations (distinguishing removal context))