Kolar v. Tester, A-16-1072

Parents (Kolar mother; Tester father) share a son born Jan 2011; they never married and separated before birth. Kolar had primary custody since birth; Tester had intermittent contact and was convicted of third‑degree domestic assault (probation) after an incident in the child’s presence.
Kolar filed to establish paternity, custody, and support in Feb 2015; temporary order gave Kolar primary physical custody and Tester alternating‑weekend visitation; trial occurred Oct 2016.
Parties submitted a joint proposed parenting plan requesting joint legal custody, but the court awarded Kolar legal and primary physical custody; Tester received every‑other‑weekend visitation, alternating holidays, and 8 continuous summer weeks.
Court ordered Tester to pay child support ($524/mo), half of work/education daycare, and half of medical expenses over $480; Tester must provide health insurance.
Trial court granted Tester’s request to change the child’s surname to Tester (summary finding that name change was in child’s best interests) and apparently awarded the full federal dependency exemption to Kolar (no specific allocation in decree).
On appeal: Tester challenges custody, parenting plan provisions, support calculations, abatement for summer custody, dependency exemption allocation, and typographical errors; Kolar cross‑appeals the name change.

Issue	Tester's Argument	Kolar's Argument	Held
Primary custody	He is more stable (employment, household) and should have primary custody.	Child has lived with her entire life; disrupting that relationship is not in child’s best interests.	Court did not err: both parents fit; awarding primary custody to Kolar affirmed.
Inclusion of specific parenting plan provisions (e.g., school breaks, birthdays, joint legal custody)	Court should include provisions he sought (and joint legal custody).	Proposed plan and counterclaim did not request many of these specifics; Kolar opposed joint legal custody.	Most requested provisions not preserved for appeal; trial court’s award of sole legal custody to Kolar was not an abuse of discretion.
Allocation of federal dependency exemption	He pays ~half of child’s expenses and should alternate exemption years.	As custodial parent, she is presumptively entitled to the exemption.	Reversed: tester rebutted presumption; exemption should alternate every other year, conditioned on being current in support.
Child’s surname change	Name change would improve bonding and family unity; "Kolar" is not a blood name.	Child has used Kolar his whole life; changing name would disrupt identity and not serve best interests.	Reversed: trial court erred; on de novo review factors favor keeping Kolar; name change not in child’s best interests.

Windham v. Griffin, 295 Neb. 279, 887 N.W.2d 710 (custody determinations entrusted to trial court discretion)
Maska v. Maska, 274 Neb. 629, 742 N.W.2d 492 (parental fitness and best‑interests framework)
In re Change of Name of Slingsby, 276 Neb. 114, 752 N.W.2d 564 (de novo review and factors for minor name changes)
Anderson v. Anderson, 290 Neb. 530, 861 N.W.2d 113 (dependency exemption allocation and trial court discretion)
Hall v. Hall, 238 Neb. 686, 472 N.W.2d 217 (custodial parent presumptively entitled to dependency exemption)
Prochaska v. Prochaska, 6 Neb. App. 302, 573 N.W.2d 777 (allocation of exemptions when parents share support roughly equally)
State on behalf of Connor H. v. Blake G., 289 Neb. 246, 856 N.W.2d 295 (best‑interests factors for child name changes)