Korth v. Korth, 309 Neb. 115

Cammy and Joel Korth divorced; April 2019 parenting plan gave joint legal custody but awarded Cammy sole physical custody and included an agreement that parents live within 20 minutes of each other and Amherst Public Schools.
Cammy remarried (Feb. 2020) and sought to relocate the three children from Kearney, NE to Westfield, IN to live with her new husband, citing improved housing, greater opportunities, and household income.
Joel opposed removal, citing the children’s stability in Kearney, strong parental bond and daily involvement with him, and the 750-mile distance that would impair in-person contact and activities.
At trial the district court found Cammy’s remarriage was a legitimate reason to move but that she failed the second Farnsworth prong (best interests): the move would not enhance the children’s quality of life and would materially impair Joel’s relationship with the children; court denied removal.
The district court further found Cammy would move to Indiana regardless of whether the children went with her, concluded the existing parenting plan was unworkable, and modified physical custody to award Joel sole physical custody (Cammy retained parenting time and joint legal custody).
Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying removal or in modifying physical custody.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cammy)	Defendant's Argument (Joel)	Held
1) Whether Cammy may remove the children to Indiana	Remarriage is a legitimate reason; move will improve housing, opportunities, and household income; oldest child prefers move	Move would disrupt children’s stability, sever daily contact with Joel, and antagonize co-parenting; benefits not dispositive	Denied removal: first prong (legitimate) met but second prong (child’s best interests under Farnsworth) not met; court’s weighing of factors not an abuse of discretion
2) Whether physical custody should be modified to Joel	Modification unsupported by evidence; existing plan should remain	Cammy intends to relocate regardless of children; sole custody to Joel is necessitated to provide daily care and continuity	Modified custody to Joel: Cammy’s unequivocal plan to move after denial constituted a material change in circumstances and award to Joel was in children’s best interests
3) Whether Cammy lacked notice that custody could be changed	(Argued) Joel did not formally plead for custody change, so change was improper	Pleadings and motions indicated modification was sought if Cammy moved; trial testimony showed Cammy knew custody was at issue	Court found Cammy failed to properly assign the notice error on appeal and, on the merits, had adequate notice from pleadings and testimony

Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999) (articulated three-part Farnsworth framework for relocation: motive, quality-of-life enhancement, and impact on noncustodial parent’s contact).
Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954, 621 N.W.2d 70 (2000) (in joint custody settings, a parent’s out-of-state move may constitute material change requiring reevaluation of custody).
Tremain v. Tremain, 264 Neb. 328, 646 N.W.2d 661 (2002) (mere request to remove, without an intent to relocate, does not constitute material change in circumstances).
Blank v. Blank, 303 Neb. 602, 930 N.W.2d 523 (2019) (due process requires reasonable notice if trial court may impose a custody arrangement not pleaded; prior pleadings can provide such notice).
Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin, 288 Neb. 240, 847 N.W.2d 79 (2014) (remarriage can be a legitimate reason to seek relocation).
Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529, 843 N.W.2d 655 (2014) (relocation analysis balances parental constitutional rights and child’s best interests).