State on behalf of Jacobson v. Jacobs
A-16-1171
| Neb. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Jesse T. Jacobs sought to modify custody and parenting time for his son Brett; originally Staci had custody and Jesse had limited visitation under a 2009 plan.
- Jesse was Brett’s biological father; a 2006 paternity test confirmed paternity and Brett’s life included increasing contact with Jesse after moving closer.
- Over time, informal arrangements allowed Jesse to have significant time, including every other weekend, with evolving summer access.
- Staci filed a modification complaint in 2015 alleging material changes affecting Brett’s best interests and sought child support adjustments; a custody evaluation was requested.
- Trial in 2016 examined historical arrangements, Meidlinger’s custody evaluation, and whether post-2009 changes warranted modification; the district court partly denied and set summer scheduling, to which Jesse timely appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and modified to increase Jesse’s parenting time while affirming the denial of a custody modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a material change in circumstances warranting custody modification. | Jesse contends a material change post-2009 supports modification. | Staci contends no material change justifies altering custody. | No abuse of discretion to deny custody modification; no modification of custody justified. |
| Whether, even if material, modification of custody is in Brett’s best interests. | Jesse argues best interests favor more access and possible joint custody. | Staci asserts the existing arrangement remains best for Brett. | Jesse did not prove best interests support custody modification. |
| Whether there was a material change in circumstances warranting modification of parenting time. | Jesse argues substantial change since 2010 justifies expanded time. | Staci argues changes were not material enough to modify time. | There was a material change in circumstances related to parenting time. |
| Whether increased parenting time is in Brett’s best interests. | Additional overnights and midweek time would benefit Brett and maintain stability. | Such changes could disrupt established routines; the court should maintain prior schedule. | The court abused its discretion by not increasing parenting time; order is modified to provide more time for Jesse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schrag v. Spear, 858 N.W.2d 865 (Neb. 2015) (standard for modification; material change in circumstances and best interests)
- Hopkins v. Hopkins, 883 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. 2016) (burden shifting for demonstrating material change and best interests)
- Floerchinger v. Floerchinger, 883 N.W.2d 419 (Neb. App. 2016) (defines material change in circumstances and custody considerations)
- Kamal v. Imroz, 759 N.W.2d 914 (Neb. 2009) (statutory framework for best interests and custody decisions)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 576 N.W.2d 779 (Neb. 1998) (factors in determining child’s best interests)
- Natalya B. v. Bishop A., 891 N.W.2d 685 (Neb. App. 2017) (best interests standard and parenting time considerations)
- Bergmeier v. Bergmeier, 894 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2017) (de novo review and custodial discretion)