Griepenstroh v. Proctor
A-20-738
| Neb. Ct. App. | Nov 2, 2021Background:
- Angela Proctor and Andrew Griepenstroh are parents of Drew (b. 2008); a 2015 order awarded Angela legal and physical custody and set a parenting-time schedule (weekends, alternating summer weeks) and child support.
- In 2019 Andrew filed to modify custody and alleged Angela denied his parenting time, Drew had excessive school absences, and Angela failed to communicate about medical/educational issues; Andrew also filed a contempt motion for denial of parenting time.
- In July 2019 Drew’s therapist (Lepard) testified that Drew reported abuse by Andrew; the district court questioned Lepard’s and Drew’s credibility but found Angela willfully withheld parenting time from April–July 2019 and entered a contempt finding.
- A parenting evaluation (Dr. McNeese) recommended joint work by parents, gradual increases in contact, medication/psych assessment for Drew, and counseling; summer 2020 alternating-week schedule was working well.
- At the August 2020 modification trial the court found a material change in circumstances, awarded joint legal and physical custody on an alternating-week basis, reduced Andrew’s child support, and imposed sanctions on Angela (jail with a purge plan and attorney fees), later adjusted; the court also found limited contempt by Andrew and ordered modest sanctions.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Proctor) | Defendant's Argument (Griepenstroh) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Angela in willful contempt for denying parenting time? | She acted to protect Drew given his anxiety and abuse allegations; she exercised medical judgment (e.g., withheld Colorado trip). | She willfully disobeyed the 2015 parenting plan by not enforcing Drew’s weekend/summer parenting time April–July 2019. | Court: Angela was willfully in contempt; finding supported by clear-and-convincing evidence and not clearly erroneous. |
| Were sanctions (jail + fees) punitive or excessive? | Sanctions were excessive/unworkable given her limited income, health risks during the pandemic, and intent to act for Drew’s welfare. | Sanctions justified by extended deprivation of parenting time and attorney fees incurred by Andrew. | Court: Sanctions were not an abuse of discretion; purge plan and timing were later modified to spread payments and split jail time. |
| Was modification to joint legal and physical custody (alternating weeks) in Drew’s best interests? | Major schedule change would harm Drew given ADHD/anxiety and expert’s caution for gradual change; Angela is more empathetic and better suited to manage Drew’s needs. | Material change (denied parenting time, school absences, strained communication) warranted modification; alternating-week schedule had worked in summer. | Court: Found a material change and held joint custody (alternating weeks) was in Drew’s best interests; affirmed. |
| Was modification of child support and medical support appropriate? | Challenges tied to custody change; argued court erred in support adjustments. | Child support recalculated per new custody; cash medical support ended because insurance became available. | Court: Child support modification affirmed; cash medical support terminated; Angela raised no distinct successful argument. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal, 309 Neb. 376, 960 N.W.2d 309 (2021) (standards of review in civil contempt: mixed de novo/clear-error/abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Braun v. Braun, 306 Neb. 890, 947 N.W.2d 694 (2020) (willfulness and requirements for jail sanctions in civil contempt; contemnor must be able to purge)
- Krejci v. Krejci, 304 Neb. 302, 934 N.W.2d 179 (2019) (contempt elements must be proven by clear and convincing evidence)
- McCullough v. McCullough, 299 Neb. 719, 910 N.W.2d 515 (2018) (impossibility of performance defeats willfulness in contempt)
- Yori v. Helms, 307 Neb. 375, 949 N.W.2d 325 (2020) (trial court credibility findings are given weight on appeal)
- Lindblad v. Lindblad, 309 Neb. 776, 962 N.W.2d 545 (2021) (custody modification standard; appellate review de novo on the record)
- Jones v. Jones, 305 Neb. 615, 941 N.W.2d 501 (2020) (factors to determine child’s best interests in custody disputes)
- Korth v. Korth, 309 Neb. 115, 958 N.W.2d 683 (2021) (availability of health insurance affects cash medical support orders)
- Wolter v. Fortuna, 27 Neb. App. 166, 928 N.W.2d 416 (2019) (statutory allowance of attorney fees in paternity and child-support matters)