Martin v. Martin
294 Neb. 106
Neb.2016Background
- Dean and Rhonda Martin divorced; they share legal custody of two minor children; Rhonda has physical custody and Dean visitation under a 2011 parenting plan.
- The plan gave Dean alternating weekend and holiday parenting time and specified transportation: Dean to pick up from Rhonda’s home at the start of his time; Rhonda to pick up from Dean at the end.
- Between Dec 2014 and Mar 2015, multiple scheduled parenting periods allegedly were not exercised by Dean because the children refused to go with him after communications with Rhonda and Dean.
- Dean filed a show-cause motion for contempt alleging Rhonda willfully interfered with his parenting time; hearing produced texts, calls, and testimony from both parents and the children.
- The district court found Rhonda willfully in contempt, modified the parenting plan (changed exchange times and made Rhonda responsible for delivering children to Dean at start of his time), appointed a guardian ad litem whose written consent is required for schedule changes, and imposed a suspended 60-day jail sentence with a purge condition and $500 attorney-fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rhonda was in contempt for denying Dean parenting time | Dean: Rhonda repeatedly shifted decisionmaking to the children, causing missed parenting time; contempt must be shown by clear and convincing evidence | Rhonda: She did not willfully deny time; children chose not to go and Dean sometimes left voluntarily; she lacked ability to physically force them | Judgment affirmed: court found no clear error in factual findings and concluded Rhonda willfully violated the order |
| Whether court could modify the parenting plan in contempt proceedings | Dean: modification proper to enforce rights and prevent future interference | Rhonda: modification exceeded court's authority in contempt context | Affirmed: court had equitable authority and §42-364.15 notice allowed modification to enforce parenting time |
| Whether 60-day jail sanction was excessive/punitive | Dean: incarceration proper as coercive remedy with purge clause | Rhonda: sentence disproportionate and unjust | Affirmed: sentence was coercive, suspended, and conditioned on compliance; not punitive or an abuse of discretion |
| Whether requiring guardian ad litem written consent unlawfully delegated court's duties | Rhonda: provision unlawfully delegated judicial visitation authority (citing Deacon) | Dean/court: requirement is limited to consent and does not remove court's final authority; designed to ensure compliance | Affirmed: provision was an equitable remedy, not an unlawful delegation; court retained ultimate authority |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Zachary D. & Alexander D., 289 Neb. 763 (sets three-part standard of review for civil contempt proceedings)
- Hossaini v. Vaelizadeh, 283 Neb. 369 ("willful" element and clear-and-convincing proof requirement for contempt)
- Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier, 279 Neb. 661 (contempt may compel obedience and provide remedies)
- Rhoades v. Rhoades, 258 Neb. 721 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 357 (trial-court credibility determinations entitled to weight on appeal)
- Sickler v. Sickler, 293 Neb. 521 (civil contempt incarceration must include purge clause; sanction is coercive)
- Strunk v. Chromy-Strunk, 270 Neb. 917 (equitable powers to devise remedies addressing ongoing problems in family law)
- Deacon v. Deacon, 207 Neb. 193 (unlawful delegation of court's visitation authority to third party)
- Gibilisco v. Gibilisco, 263 Neb. 27 (discussed in relation to Deacon)