Schriner v. Schriner
25 Neb. Ct. App. 165
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Cecil and Sara Schriner divorced in February 2014; Cecil received legal and physical custody of their two young sons; Sara was granted limited midweek and alternating weekend parenting time and ordered to pay child support.
- Sara filed to modify parenting time in December 2014, alleging Cecil’s LEAD program travel and refusal to notify her of appointments/activities justified more time and first-right-of-care.
- Cecil counterclaimed, alleging Sara engaged in hostile, alienating, and disruptive behavior toward him in front of the children and sought elimination of midweek exchanges and restrictions on her participation in children’s appointments.
- Trial occurred in March and May 2016; evidence included testimony from parties, school staff, and the children’s pediatric dentist who described recurring disruptive dynamics when both parents attended appointments.
- The district court eliminated Sara’s Tuesday/Thursday parenting time (adding an extra overnight on her weekends), limited her participation in routine medical/dental/optometric/dermatology appointments (requiring post-visit summaries), ordered her to attend anger-management/counseling, and awarded Cecil $7,500 in attorney fees.
- Sara appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings, lack of explicit material-change finding, reduction of parenting time, appointment restrictions, counseling requirement, and the attorney-fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sara) | Defendant's Argument (Cecil) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidentiary/closing-argument procedures were erroneous | Court admitted unseen documents, denied rebuttal and surprised Sara with counseling request | Procedures were within court discretion; proposed order not admitted; Sara had post-judgment opportunity to raise issues | No abuse of discretion; no reversible evidentiary error |
| Whether a material change in circumstances justified modifying parenting time | Court failed to make an explicit material-change finding; Sara opposed reduction of her parenting time | Ongoing parental conflict and alienating conduct harmed children and justified minimizing exchanges | Implied findings and de novo review show material change (ongoing conflict); court did not abuse discretion in eliminating midweek exchanges |
| Whether court properly restricted Sara’s participation/notification for routine medical/dental/activities | Denial of notice/participation improperly limits parental access | Sara’s presence created counterproductive, disruptive atmospheres at routine appointments; custodial parent has authority for routine decisions | Restrictions upheld: custodial parent has decision authority; court reasonably limited participation while preserving access to records and post-visit summaries |
| Whether ordering anger management/counseling and awarding attorney fees was proper | Order was sprung in closing, unsupported, and fees inappropriate given Sara’s finances | Evidence showed unresolved parental conflict; statutory and case law authorize remedial education/counseling and discretionary fee awards | Court did not abuse discretion: counseling supported by record and statutes; attorney-fee award within discretionary bounds given litigation history |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores v. Flores-Guerrero, 290 Neb. 248 (Neb. 2015) (child-custody modifications reviewed de novo; trial court discretion upheld absent abuse)
- Robb v. Robb, 268 Neb. 694 (Neb. 2004) (appellate deference where trial judge observed witness credibility and chose between conflicting evidence)
- Garza v. Garza, 288 Neb. 213 (Neb. 2014) (standard and factors for awarding attorney fees in dissolution-related proceedings)
- State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500 (Neb. Ct. App. 2016) (ongoing parental conflict can constitute material change warranting modification)
- Fine v. Fine, 261 Neb. 836 (Neb. 2001) (best interests of the child are paramount in parenting-time determinations)