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/Watts (mother). Jessie had been primary custodian since 2002; a 2006 order set Devin parenting time (every other weekend, rotating holidays, 1 month in summer).
- In July 2016 Devin filed to modify custody seeking primary physical custody, alleging Hunter (born Nov. 2000) wanted to live with him and attend Ansley schools.
- Hunter (nearly 16 at trial) testified in camera he preferred living with Devin for smaller classes, ag classes/FFA, more outdoor/ag opportunities, and friends in Ansley; he also reported longstanding problems completing schoolwork in Kearney.
- At the November 2016 hearing both parents and multiple school and church witnesses testified; both parents were found fit by the district court.
- The district court found Hunter’s preference and his evolving relationship with his father constituted a material change in circumstances and that changing custody was in Hunter’s best interests; it awarded joint legal custody and primary physical custody to Devin effective June 1, 2017. Jessie appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Devin) | Defendant's Argument (Jessie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a material change in circumstances justified modifying custody | Hunter’s stated, reasoned preference to live with father and improved relationship with father constituted a material change | Preference and advantages of father’s environment are not a legal basis absent showing welfare demands change; no proof Ansley would improve Hunter’s school performance | Court: Yes. Hunter’s age, reasons, and evolving relation with father were a material change the court could consider |
| Whether Devin is a fit custodial parent | Devin shown to provide stable home, enforce school-first rules, and support Hunter’s interests | Jessie alleged financial shortcomings, past child-support lapses, moral concerns (trapping, conduct), tax/insurance issues | Court: Both parents fit; district court did not abuse discretion in finding Devin fit |
| Whether awarding primary physical custody to Devin is in Hunter’s best interests | Smaller school, ag classes/FFA, friends, extracurriculars, and Hunter’s reasoned preference favor placement with Devin | Jessie emphasized continuity, her long-term primary care, efforts to address school issues, and risk Hunter would "avoid" school by moving | Court: Hunter’s reasoned preference and other best-interest factors (academics, activities, living environment) supported award to Devin; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98, 858 N.W.2d 865 (discussion of standard of review and deference to trial court on custody)
- State on behalf of Jakai C. v. Tiffany M., 292 Neb. 68, 871 N.W.2d 230 (elements required to modify custody: material change and best interests)
- Floerchinger v. Floerchinger, 24 Neb. App. 120, 883 N.W.2d 419 (child’s reasoned preference can constitute material change supporting modification)
- Hossack v. Hossack, 176 Neb. 368, 126 N.W.2d 166 (limitations on changing custody based on environmental advantages without affirmative showing welfare demands change)
- Vogel v. Vogel, 262 Neb. 1030, 637 N.W.2d 611 (child’s preference entitled to consideration if of sufficient age and reasoned)
- Robb v. Robb, 268 Neb. 694, 687 N.W.2d 195 (factors relevant to custody determinations)
- Miles v. Miles, 231 Neb. 782, 438 N.W.2d 139 (custody modification precedent considering child preference and relational deterioration)