Schmidt v. Parkert, A-16-919

Jason Schmidt and Lana Parkert married in 2007; daughter Ella born 2010. Jason filed for dissolution in Aug 2015; both sought custody and other relief. Trial occurred June 2016.
Temporary orders (Nov 2015) provided joint physical and legal custody and temporary support (child support and $500 alimony); parties shared parenting time about 50/50 for ~7 months before trial.
At trial Jason (higher earner; Union Pacific director) sought sole custody and no alimony; Lana (lower income, recently employed) sought sole legal custody or at least legal custody and attorney fees.
Key contested issues at trial: joint vs. sole physical custody, joint vs. sole legal custody, alimony, and attorney fees. Ella’s therapist testified with concerns about Lana’s parenting, but the trial court stated it did not rely heavily on that testimony.
Trial court decree: joint physical and legal custody; Jason ordered to pay $950/month child support and $1,000/month alimony for 36 months; each party to bear their own attorney fees. Both parties appealed/cross-appealed; Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jason)	Defendant's Argument (Lana)	Held
Whether joint physical custody is in child’s best interests	Therapist’s testimony and concerns about Lana show joint physical custody harms child; Jason sought sole custody	Joint physical custody had worked during temporary period; Ella adapted and parents can provide stable arrangement	Affirmed joint physical custody: trial court credited other evidence and found no abuse of discretion
Whether joint legal custody is appropriate	Parties cannot effectively communicate; joint legal custody impracticable	Despite strained relationship, parties have agreed on major decisions (school, religion, medical) and can cooperate	Affirmed joint legal custody: court found parents capable of mutual fundamental decisions
Whether alimony to Lana was proper and amount appropriate	Jason argued Lana has been employed and he cannot afford alimony given obligations and expenses	Lana argued income disparity and her non‑monetary contributions to marriage justify alimony	Affirmed alimony: $1,000/month for 36 months upheld as reasonable given income disparity and Lana’s contributions
Whether Jason should pay Lana’s attorney fees	Jason did not expressly seek fees; his motions increased litigation	Lana sought fees due to numerous pretrial motions and disparate earning capacity	Affirmed denial of attorney fees: court did not abuse discretion given Lana’s financial assistance from family, alimony award, and equitable factors

Mamot v. Mamot, 283 Neb. 659, 813 N.W.2d 440 (2012) (standards for appellate review of dissolution matters)
Reed v. Reed, 277 Neb. 391, 763 N.W.2d 686 (2009) (trial court discretion in custody and property matters)
Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043, 736 N.W.2d 365 (2007) (limits and considerations for joint physical custody)
Gress v. Gress, 271 Neb. 122, 710 N.W.2d 318 (2006) (parental fitness and child’s best interests standard)
Robb v. Robb, 268 Neb. 694, 687 N.W.2d 195 (2004) (factors for child custody determinations)
McGuire v. McGuire, 11 Neb. App. 433, 652 N.W.2d 293 (2002) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
Bergmeier v. Bergmeier, 296 Neb. 440 (2017) (purpose and review of alimony awards)
Hosack v. Hosack, 267 Neb. 934, 678 N.W.2d 746 (2004) (income disparity as factor in alimony)
Emery v. Moffett, 269 Neb. 867, 697 N.W.2d 249 (2005) (discretionary nature of attorney fee awards)
Noonan v. Noonan, 261 Neb. 552, 624 N.W.2d 314 (2001) (customary award of attorney fees in dissolution cases)