Korth v. Korth, 309 Neb. 115

Cammy and Joel Korth divorced in 2019: joint legal custody; Cammy awarded sole physical custody; parenting plan stipulated both parents live within 20 minutes of Amherst Public Schools and each other.
In February 2020 Cammy remarried and petitioned to relocate the three children to Westfield, Indiana, to live with her new husband.
At trial Cammy testified the move would improve housing, household income (via husband), and educational/athletic opportunities; the eldest child (14) expressed an intelligent preference to move.
Joel opposed removal, emphasizing his extensive daily involvement with the children, their ties to Kearney/Amherst schools and family, and the 750-mile distance to Indiana that would hinder in-person contact.
The district court found Cammy’s remarriage a legitimate reason to move but concluded removal was not in the children’s best interests; because Cammy would move regardless, the court modified custody and awarded Joel sole physical custody (Cammy retained joint legal custody and limited parenting time).
Cammy appealed, arguing the court erred by denying removal and by changing physical custody.

Issue	Cammy's Argument	Joel's Argument	Held
1) Was denial of Cammy’s request to remove the children to Indiana an abuse of discretion?	Move improves children’s housing, opportunities, and household income; eldest child prefers move; remarriage is a legitimate basis to relocate.	Move would disrupt children’s stability, sever daily contact with Joel, and antagonize co-parenting; harms best interests.	Denial affirmed: remarriage is legitimate but Cammy failed to show removal was in children’s best interests under Farnsworth factors.
2) Was it error to modify physical custody to Joel after denying removal?	Joel didn’t plead for custody modification; modification was unsupported by evidence.	Cammy announced she would relocate even if children could not go; her inability to provide daily supervision from Indiana is a material change; Joel is highly involved and can meet children’s needs.	Modification affirmed: Cammy’s unequivocal intent to move constituted a material change, and changing custody to Joel served the children’s best interests.

Weaver v. Weaver, 308 Neb. 373, 954 N.W.2d 619 (standard for modifying custody: material change + best interests)
Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (three-part framework for removal: parents’ motives; enhanced quality of life; effect on noncustodial visitation)
Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin, 288 Neb. 240, 847 N.W.2d 79 (remarriage is a legitimate reason to relocate)
Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954, 621 N.W.2d 70 (move may be a material change affecting custody when joint custody depends on geographic proximity)
Tremain v. Tremain, 264 Neb. 328, 646 N.W.2d 661 (mere request to relocate is not a material change absent intent to move)
Blank v. Blank, 303 Neb. 602, 930 N.W.2d 523 (notice required when court may impose an outcome not pleaded; parties must have opportunity to present evidence)
Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043, 736 N.W.2d 365 (reversed where court imposed joint custody without prior notice)
Jaeger v. Jaeger, 307 Neb. 910, 951 N.W.2d 367 (child preference considered when based on sound reasoning)