Jones v. Jones, 941 N.W.2d 501

Mary and Curtis Jones divorced; 2006 consent decree awarded Mary legal and physical custody of their son, Kasey.
In 2011 the parties stipulated to a modification: joint legal and physical custody with a week‑on/week‑off parenting schedule and reduced child support.
From 2014–2017 Mary experienced prolonged unemployment, multiple evictions, moved frequently, and lived with several people the court found to be poor influences (including an adult son with a violent temper); Kasey lived with Mary wherever she resided.
Curtis has steady employment, remarried, and provided a stable home; in 2016 he sought modification to award him primary physical custody and a school‑year 10/4 parenting schedule.
The district court (after a 2‑day trial) awarded Curtis physical custody with a 10/4 school‑year schedule and week‑on/week‑off summers, kept joint legal custody but gave Curtis final decisionmaking authority on impasse, terminated Curtis’s child support obligation and ordered Mary to pay $10/month.
The Court of Appeals reversed as to physical custody but affirmed the legal custody change; the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals as to physical custody, struck the safety plan, clarified the legal‑custody impasse rule, and directed attachment of a child‑support worksheet.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a material change in circumstances to modify physical custody	Mary: post‑2011 changes were not sufficiently material; child not harmed	Curtis: continuous unemployment + chronic housing instability since 2014 materially affected Kasey’s best interests	Court: material change proven; physical custody modification affirmed
Whether to alter legal custody by giving Curtis final decision on impasse	Mary: joint legal custody should remain without giving Curtis unilateral final say	Curtis: impasse provision needed to resolve disputes	Court: joint legal custody retained; Curtis given final say on impasse (clarified in plan)
Whether a safety plan limiting Mary’s substance use was warranted	Mary: safety plan unnecessary; no current substance abuse shown	Curtis: safety plan justified by history and concern	Court: record did not support a safety plan; safety provisions stricken
Whether a child support worksheet must be attached when nominal support is set	Mary: error not to attach worksheet	Curtis/district court: no contest to amount but worksheet omitted	Court: even for nominal support courts must attach appropriate worksheet and explain deviations; remand to prepare worksheet

VanSkiver v. VanSkiver, 303 Neb. 664, 930 N.W.2d 569 (de novo review of custody modification; affirm unless abuse of discretion)
State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933, 932 N.W.2d 692 (custody factors and best‑interests framework)
Whilde v. Whilde, 298 Neb. 473, 904 N.W.2d 695 (two‑step test: material change then best interests)
Hopkins v. Hopkins, 294 Neb. 417, 883 N.W.2d 363 (same modification standard)
Heistand v. Heistand, 267 Neb. 300, 673 N.W.2d 541 (material change defined and applied)
Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98, 858 N.W.2d 865 (no requirement to show actual harm to child to find material change)
Hoschar v. Hoschar, 220 Neb. 913, 374 N.W.2d 64 (material change should be more permanent, not merely transitory)
Rutherford v. Rutherford, 277 Neb. 301, 761 N.W.2d 922 (child support orders must include worksheets)
Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76, 907 N.W.2d 275 (importance of attaching support worksheets to demonstrate calculations)
Stewart v. Stewart, 9 Neb. App. 431, 613 N.W.2d 486 (worksheets show the trial court has "done the math")