State on behalf of Slingsby v. Slingsby
25 Neb. Ct. App. 239
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents: Devin W. Oxford (father) and Jessie M. Slingsby (now Watts, mother) share custody of Hunter, born 2000; prior orders (2002, modified 2006) awarded custody to Jessie and parenting time to Devin.
- Devin filed to modify physical custody in July 2016, alleging a material change: Hunter, then nearly 16, wanted to live with Devin and attend school in Ansley (where Devin lives) due to academic struggles in Kearney (where Jessie lives).
- At the November 2016 hearing, testimony established both parents fit; Hunter testified in camera preferring to live with Devin for smaller classes, agricultural opportunities (FFA, ag class), friends, and outdoor lifestyle.
- Evidence showed Hunter capable but inconsistent academically; mother and stepfather had long been primary caregivers and had actively worked to improve his school performance; father recently increased school involvement and offered a home with rules prioritizing homework.
- The district court found Hunter’s preference and evolving relationship with his father constituted a material change, awarded joint legal custody and primary physical custody to Devin effective June 1, 2017, and Jessie appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jessie) | Defendant's Argument (Devin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a material change in circumstances to modify custody | No; father failed to show changed circumstances warranting relocation of primary custody | Yes; Hunter’s articulated preference and evolving relationship with father constitute a material change | Court: Material change existed (Hunter’s preference and relationship) |
| Whether Devin is an unfit custodial parent | Devin is financially unreliable, morally questionable (trapping, alleged tax/license issues), and dependent on girlfriend | Devin is fit; financial history not dispositive; parenting supportive and home suitable | Court: Devin is fit; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether modification is in Hunter’s best interests | Continuing stability with mother, her long-term primary care, and support efforts favor remaining with mother | Smaller school, ag programs, closer friends, improved father relationship and homework enforcement favor placement with father | Court: Best interests favor father; Hunter’s reasoned preference outweighed other factors |
| Standard of review on appeal | N/A (challenges to findings) | N/A | Court: Review is de novo on record but district court’s factual findings affirmed absent abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98 (Neb. 2015) (custody decisions entrusted to trial court and affirmed absent abuse of discretion)
- State on behalf of Jakai C. v. Tiffany M., 292 Neb. 68 (Neb. 2015) (burden to show material change then best interests for custody modification)
- Floerchinger v. Floerchinger, 24 Neb. App. 120 (Neb. Ct. App. 2016) (child’s articulated, reasoned preference can constitute material change supporting custody modification)
- Hossack v. Hossack, 176 Neb. 368 (Neb. 1964) (courts must require affirmative showing that child’s welfare demands change; historical caution against changing custody for improved environment alone)
- Vogel v. Vogel, 262 Neb. 1030 (Neb. 2002) (child’s preference entitled to consideration if of sufficient age and based on sound reasoning)
- Robb v. Robb, 268 Neb. 694 (Neb. 2004) (lists best-interests factors relevant to custody determinations)