State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T.
303 Neb. 933
| Neb. | 2019Background
- Child (Kaaden) born 2014; paternity action filed by State; Jeffery admitted paternity and sought custody; Mandy contested and sought sole custody.
- Temporary orders initially limited Jeffery’s parenting time; Mandy repeatedly refused to comply with overnight/expanded visits and was later found in contempt.
- At trial, both parents found fit; counselor recommended a week-on/week-off schedule after transition; guardian ad litem favored awarding primary physical custody to Jeffery due to parental conflict and alleged parental-alienation conduct by Mandy.
- District court awarded Jeffery primary legal and primary physical custody but implemented an alternating week-on/week-off parenting plan (nearly equal parenting time) with limited exchanges and sole legal decisionmaking to Jeffery.
- Court used the joint-custody child-support worksheet (worksheet 3) and ordered Jeffery to provide health insurance; district court additionally ordered Jeffery to pay the first $480 of nonreimbursed medical expenses per year.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding the nearly equal parenting time amounted to disfavored joint physical custody and remanded to reduce Mandy’s parenting time and recalculate support; Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mandy) | Defendant's Argument (Jeffery) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the week-on/week-off plan was an improper de facto joint physical custody award | District court’s plan was permissible; parenting plan served child’s best interests | Nearly equal parenting time effectively imposed joint physical custody, which is disfavored given parents’ poor communication; abuse of discretion | Court: Joint physical custody label is appropriate for alternating-week schedule; disapproves prior blanket rule disfavoring joint physical custody and finds no abuse of discretion in the plan |
| Whether Nebraska law disfavors joint physical custody (Trimble rule) | Trimble rule should be reconsidered; Parenting Act requires best-interest analysis without presumptive bias | Joint physical custody should be reserved for rare cases where parents can cooperate | Court: Disapproves blanket Trimble rule; joint custody neither favored nor disfavored; custody decisions must be based on best interests of the child |
| Proper child-support worksheet to use when parenting time is nearly equal | Use worksheet 3 (joint custody worksheet) because parenting time exceeds guideline threshold | Opposed: if parenting time reduced, worksheet 3 would be improper | Court: Use of worksheet 3 was proper here because parenting time exceeded 142 overnights and no rebuttal was shown |
| Allocation of the first $480 of nonreimbursed medical expenses | Trial court’s allocation was acceptable | The first $480 is subsumed in guideline support and should not be separately allocated to obligor | Court: Agrees with Court of Appeals—first $480 is subsumed in child support; reversal of that portion affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Trimble v. Trimble, 218 Neb. 118, 352 N.W.2d 599 (1984) (earlier statement that joint custody should be reserved for rare cases)
- Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043, 736 N.W.2d 365 (2007) (applied Trimble’s caution regarding joint physical custody)
- Becher v. Becher, 299 Neb. 206, 908 N.W.2d 12 (2018) (held every-other-week schedule met statutory definition of joint physical custody)
- Leners v. Leners, 302 Neb. 904, 925 N.W.2d 704 (2019) (affirmed joint custody where plan maximized child’s time with both parents and minimized transitions)
- Bruegman v. Bruegman, 417 P.3d 157 (Wyo. 2018) (state supreme court rejected its blanket rule disfavoring joint custody and held best-interest analysis controls)