Korth v. Korth, 309 Neb. 115

Cammy and Joel divorced; on April 3, 2019 the district court adopted a parenting plan giving joint legal custody, Cammy sole physical custody, and including an agreement that both parents would live within 20 minutes of Amherst Public Schools and each other.
Cammy remarried (Feb. 14, 2020) and filed to modify the parenting plan to move the three children to Westfield, Indiana (Indianapolis metro area) to live with her new husband.
At trial Cammy argued the move would improve housing, opportunities, and household income; the 14-year-old oldest child supported moving. Joel testified he was a daily, involved caregiver, that the children had deep local ties, and that a 750-mile move would disrupt stability and meaningfully reduce his contact.
The district court found Cammy’s remarriage a legitimate reason to relocate but concluded the proposed move was not in the children’s best interests under the Farnsworth factors and denied removal.
Because Cammy testified she would move to Indiana regardless of whether the children could go with her, the court found the existing parenting plan unworkable and modified physical custody, awarding Joel sole physical custody (Cammy retained parenting time); Joel’s child support was suspended.
Cammy appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed denial of removal and the custody modification.

Issue	Cammy's Argument	Joel's Argument	Held
Whether the custodial parent may remove the children from Nebraska to Indiana	Remarriage is a legitimate reason; move would improve housing, opportunities, and household income; child favored move	Move would disrupt children’s stability, sever local family ties, and materially impair Joel’s meaningful contact	Denied — remarriage legitimate but Cammy failed to show removal was in the children’s best interests (court properly weighed motives, quality-of-life factors, and visitation impact)
Whether physical custody should be modified to award Joel sole physical custody	Modification unsupported by the evidence; Joel did not expressly plead for a custody change / insufficient notice	Cammy’s unequivocal intent to relocate regardless of whether children accompanied her created a material change requiring new custodial arrangement	Affirmed — Cammy’s intent to move (plus denial of removal) constituted a material change; changing custody to Joel was in the children’s best interests and Cammy had adequate notice

Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242 (1999) (establishes two-part removal framework and the three broad/factors for assessing whether relocation is in child’s best interests)
Weaver v. Weaver, 308 Neb. 373 (2021) (standards re: custody modification and appellate review of custody/relocation determinations)
Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin, 288 Neb. 240 (2014) (recognizes remarriage as a legitimate reason to relocate)
Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954 (2000) (accepting an out-of-state job can be a material change requiring reexamination of custody where joint custody depended on geographic proximity)
Tremain v. Tremain, 264 Neb. 328 (2002) (mere request to remove, without clear intent to relocate, does not necessarily constitute a material change)
Blank v. Blank, 303 Neb. 602 (2019) (discusses when parties have adequate notice that a different custodial arrangement may be at issue)
Jaeger v. Jaeger, 307 Neb. 910 (2020) (addresses weight to be given a sufficiently mature child’s custody preference)