Jaide v. Jaide, A-17-311

Chariss and Joshua Jaide divorced after a marriage (two children: Kaylen, born ~2010, and Hunter). Chariss filed for divorce in May 2016; temporary orders (Aug 1, 2016) awarded joint legal custody and gave Joshua primary physical custody.
At trial (Nov 17, 2016) both parents testified; both were found fit. Joshua lived in Bladen with his parents (and girlfriend); his mother and girlfriend provided childcare while he worked. Chariss lived in Hastings, worked nights, and relied on her aunt, father, and boyfriend for childcare.
Evidence included testimony from extended family and friends for both sides describing parenting involvement, support networks, and child well-being in current placement. Some adverse incidents were alleged (e.g., past corporal discipline by Joshua’s mother, an episode where Joshua drove aggressively).
The district court awarded primary physical custody to Joshua, citing (among factors) a stronger family support system, the children’s adjustment in Joshua’s care since the temporary order, and evidence they were well-adjusted in that placement. Chariss appealed only the custody decision.
The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion (de novo on the record) and affirmed the custody award to Joshua.

Issue	Chariss' Argument	Joshua's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding primary physical custody to Joshua	District court should have awarded Chariss primary custody because she was primary caregiver pre-separation, has adequate support, and evidence showed Joshua’s household care was often provided by his mother (arguing parental-preference or superior maternal claim)	Court properly awarded physical custody to Joshua based on evidence of his stronger family support, children’s adjustment in his care, and fitness of both parents	No abuse of discretion; custody awarded to Joshua (joint legal custody; Joshua primary physical custody)

Lorenzen v. Lorenzen, 294 Neb. 204, 883 N.W.2d 292 (discussing standard of appellate review in divorce matters)
State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500, 873 N.W.2d 208 (weight given to trial court’s witness credibility in custody disputes)
Citta v. Facka, 19 Neb. App. 736, 812 N.W.2d 917 (best-interests standard in custody determinations)
Robb v. Robb, 268 Neb. 694, 687 N.W.2d 195 (factors to consider in child custody determinations)
Davidson v. Davidson, 245 Neb. 357, 576 N.W.2d 779 (importance of trial court’s ability to observe witnesses in custody cases)
Windham v. Griffin, 295 Neb. 279, 887 N.W.2d 710 (parental-preference doctrine explained)