Korth v. Korth, 958 N.W.2d 683

Cammy and Joel divorced in 2019; parenting plan awarded joint legal custody and gave Cammy sole physical custody of three children, with both parents agreeing to live within 20 minutes of Amherst Public Schools and one another.
Cammy remarried (Feb. 14, 2020) and sought to relocate the children to Westfield, Indiana, claiming better housing, educational and activity opportunities, and improved household income.
Joel opposed removal, stressing his long-standing daily involvement, the children’s ties to Kearney/Amherst, and that a 750‑mile move would impair his meaningful contact with the children.
The district court found Cammy’s remarriage a legitimate reason to move (threshold met) but concluded, under the Farnsworth factors, that the move would not be in the children’s best interests and denied removal; C.K. (age 14) favored the move but that preference was not dispositive.
Because Cammy testified she would move regardless of whether the children accompanied her, the trial court found the existing parenting plan unworkable and modified physical custody to award Joel sole physical custody (Cammy retained joint legal custody and limited parenting time).
Cammy appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed—holding denial of removal and custody modification were not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cammy)	Defendant's Argument (Joel)	Held
Whether Cammy may remove the children to Indiana	Remarriage is a legitimate reason; move will improve housing, opportunities, and parental availability; in children’s best interests	Move would disrupt stability, sever daily contact with Joel, and antagonize co‑parenting; harms children’s ties to family/community	Removal denied: threshold met but Cammy failed to prove move was in children’s best interests under Farnsworth (quality‑of‑life, visitation impact weighed against move)
Whether to modify physical custody after denial of removal	Modification unsupported; Joel did not formally plead for custody change; trial court lacked basis	Cammy will relocate regardless, making sole physical custody unworkable; material change in circumstances requiring new arrangement	Custody modified to Joel: court found a material change (Cammy’s unequivocal intent to move) and that awarding Joel custody was in the children’s best interests; Cammy had adequate notice

Weaver v. Weaver, 308 Neb. 373 (2021) (custody/relocation questions entrusted to trial court; standard of review)
Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242 (1999) (two‑part removal framework and Farnsworth best‑interest considerations)
Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954 (2000) (move may constitute material change when joint custody depends on proximity)
Tremain v. Tremain, 264 Neb. 328 (2002) (mere request to remove not a material change absent intent to relocate)
Daniels v. Maldonado‑Morin, 288 Neb. 240 (2014) (remarriage can be a legitimate reason to relocate)
Blank v. Blank, 303 Neb. 602 (2019) (parties must have reasonable notice when court may impose a custody outcome not requested)