Franklin M. v. Lauren C.
310 Neb. 927
Neb.2022Background:
- Franklin filed a paternity, custody, and support action for two children born out of wedlock; he sought custody and to prevent removal to Iowa.
- Lauren sought permission to relocate the children to Akron, Iowa, for work/family reasons and moved frequently between Nebraska and Iowa; she requested primary custody in Iowa.
- Trial evidence included Lauren’s testimony that Franklin had been physically and verbally abusive; Franklin denied physical abuse in his testimony.
- The district court found by a preponderance that domestic abuse had occurred, referenced Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932, denied Lauren’s removal request stating she “failed to meet her burden,” and awarded joint legal and joint physical custody with a 2-2-3 parenting schedule.
- Lauren appealed, arguing the court applied the wrong removal standard (imposing a burden on her) and failed to make the statutorily required “special written findings” under § 43-2932 after finding domestic intimate partner abuse.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the custody order and remanded for further proceedings because the court applied an improper removal standard and failed to make the special written findings required by § 43-2932.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Franklin) | Defendant's Argument (Lauren) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Farnsworth "true removal" burden applied to Lauren’s request to move children to Iowa | Farnsworth applies to removal disputes; court may require showing of legitimate reason and best interest under Farnsworth | Farnsworth does not apply in initial paternity custody determinations; court should decide custody by parental fitness and best interests | Court: Farnsworth burden wrongly applied; in initial paternity custody determinations, removal is part of best-interests/fitness analysis (Pathammavong) |
| Whether the district court satisfied § 43-2932 when it found domestic intimate partner abuse | Franklin did not contest the abuse finding and relied on court’s adoption of parenting plan | Lauren argued court failed to make the mandatory "special written findings" and did not identify limits to protect children/other parent or enforce burden on Franklin | Court: Findings were inadequate—court must make explicit written findings that limits imposed will adequately protect other parent/children and note burden on parent found to have committed abuse |
| Whether joint legal and physical custody could be awarded after abuse finding without special written findings | Plaintiff defended custody award as permissible | Defendant contended § 43-2932 forbids awarding custody without special written findings and proof that custody won’t endanger child/parent | Court: Awarding shared custody without the required § 43-2932 findings was an abuse of discretion; custody order vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242 (establishes two-part "true removal" test for custodial parent seeking to relocate)
- State on behalf of Pathammavong v. Pathammavong, 268 Neb. 1 (initial paternity custody determinations use parental fitness/best interests; Farnsworth threshold not required)
- Flores v. Flores-Guerrero, 290 Neb. 248 (§ 43-2932 obligations are mandatory; custody determinations without required written findings must be vacated)
- Coleman v. Kahler, 17 Neb. App. 518 (Court of Appeals applying Pathammavong in paternity removal context; Farnsworth factors may inform best-interests analysis but threshold burden not applied)
- Tyler F. v. Sara P., 306 Neb. 397 (standard of review and statutory interpretation principles)