Schroeder v. Schroeder, A-16-067

Parents Clayton B. Schroeder and Maria A. Michaelis (formerly Schroeder) divorced in 2006 and have shared joint legal and physical custody of their daughter under a 2013 modification with equal parenting time.
Longstanding conflict: parents communicate poorly, disagree about extracurriculars (mother enrolls child in multiple sports; father often does not transport or attend) and future schooling (mother favors Elkhorn public; father favors parochial school).
Mother sought modification (reducing father’s parenting time and obtaining sole legal custody); father sought sole legal custody and changes to telephone provisions.
Trial court found a material change in circumstances, retained joint legal and physical custody but granted father final decisionmaking authority on major issues (sports, high school) if parents could not agree; required reasonable efforts to consult the other parent.
Mother appealed, arguing the award of final decisionmaking to father (and not awarding her sole custody) was error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Michaelis)	Defendant's Argument (Schroeder)	Held
Whether district court erred in modifying custody by granting father final decisionmaking authority while keeping joint legal custody	Michaelis argued she is the more involved, communicative parent and awarding father final decisionmaking undermines child’s best interests; sought sole legal custody	Schroeder argued mother is argumentative and the court’s decision fits the child’s best interests given the conflict; he sought sole legal custody	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion or plain error; material change existed and awarding father final decisionmaking (with joint custody retained and duty to consult) was within trial court’s discretion
Whether appellant’s brief noncompliance (no assignments-of-error section) required dismissal	Michaelis’s brief omitted the required assignments-of-error section	Schroeder requested dismissal or affirmance	Appellate court declined dismissal, reviewed for plain error/abuse of discretion and reached same result

Groseth v. Groseth, 257 Neb. 525 (1999) (custody modification matters are entrusted to district court and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98 (2015) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 249 Neb. 573 (1996) (burden on party seeking modification to show material change; appellate deference to trial credibility findings)
Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529 (2014) (appellate brief requirements; assignments-of-error rule)
Peterson v. Peterson, 239 Neb. 113 (1991) (material change in circumstances standard for custody modification)
State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500 (2016) (approving division of final decisionmaking to minimize parental conflict; defer to trial court)
Kamal v. Imroz, 277 Neb. 116 (2009) (joint legal custody inappropriate when parents cannot communicate effectively)
Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 357 (1997) (importance of trial court’s ability to hear and observe witnesses in custody determinations)