Korth v. Korth, 309 Neb. 115

Cammy and Joel Korth divorced after having three children; the April 2019 parenting plan awarded joint legal custody and gave Cammy sole physical custody, with parenting time to Joel and a mutual agreement that both parents would live within 20 minutes of Amherst Public Schools near Kearney, Nebraska.
Cammy remarried in February 2020 and sought modification to move the children to Westfield, Indiana to live with her new husband; she asserted improved housing, opportunities, and household income as benefits of the move.
Joel opposed removal, arguing the move would disrupt the children’s stability and materially diminish his close, active role in their daily lives and activities.
At trial the district court found Cammy’s motive legitimate (remarriage) but concluded removal was not in the children’s best interests; it therefore denied removal and, because Cammy stated she would move regardless, modified physical custody to award Joel sole physical custody subject to Cammy’s parenting time.
Cammy appealed both the denial of removal and the custody modification; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, applying the two‑part removal framework and established standards for custody modification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cammy)	Defendant's Argument (Joel)	Held
Whether Cammy could remove the children to Indiana	Move is legitimate (remarriage) and would enhance children’s and household quality of life (better housing, activities, C.K.’s preference); Cammy willing to accommodate visitation	Move would disrupt children’s stability, sever close daily relationship with Joel, and antagonize co‑parenting; distance (≈750 miles) would limit meaningful visitation	Denial affirmed: removal legitimate but not in children’s best interests under Farnsworth factors (motives balanced, quality of life not sufficiently enhanced, visitation impact weighs against move)
Whether district court could modify physical custody after denying removal	Modification was unsupported; Joel did not plead for custody change explicitly	Cammy intends to move regardless; relocation without children makes joint physical custody unworkable and is a material change warranting reassessment	Affirmed: Cammy’s unequivocal intent to move created a material change; changing custody to Joel was in the children’s best interests under statutory and discretionary factors

Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242 (1999) (articulates three‑part removal analysis and nine components for assessing enhanced quality of life)
Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954 (2000) (a parent’s move can be a material change when joint custody depends on geographic proximity)
Tremain v. Tremain, 264 Neb. 328 (2002) (mere request for removal is not a material change absent clear intent to relocate)
Blank v. Blank, 303 Neb. 602 (2019) (parties must have reasonable notice when custody outcomes not pleaded; prior filings can provide notice)
Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043 (2007) (reversed joint custody award where parties lacked prior notice that joint custody was at issue)
Weaver v. Weaver, 308 Neb. 373 (2021) (standard of review: custody/relocation matters are initially discretionary and reviewed de novo but affirmed absent abuse of discretion)
Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529 (2014) (relocation analysis should weigh whether opposing parent seeks to frustrate visitation)
Daniels v. Maldonado‑Morin, 288 Neb. 240 (2014) (remarriage is a legitimate reason to seek relocation)