State on behalf of Slingsby v. Slingsby
25 Neb. Ct. App. 239
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents Jessie M. Slingsby (now Watts) and Devin W. Oxford share a son, Hunter (born Nov. 2000). Jessie had been primary custodian under prior orders (2002 stipulation; 2006 modification gave Devin specific parenting time).
- In July 2016 Devin sought primary physical custody, alleging Hunter (then nearly 16) wanted to live with him and attend Ansley schools because he was struggling at Kearney High School.
- Evidence: Hunter testified in camera he preferred living with Devin for smaller classes, ag/FFA opportunities, more outdoor activities, and friends in Ansley; teachers and counselors described Hunter as capable but inconsistent with homework.
- Both parents found fit by the district court; testimony described strong parent-child relationships on both sides and differing views on whether a school/environment change would help Hunter academically and behaviorally.
- The district court found Hunter’s articulated preference and his evolving relationship with his father constituted a material change in circumstances, 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 a material change in circumstances existed to modify custody | No — Hunter’s preferences and school advantages in Ansley do not constitute a material change; Hossack limits such grounds | Yes — Hunter’s clear, reasoned preference and evolving father–son relationship are material and would have affected the prior decree | Court: material change existed (Hunter’s preference and evolving relationship) |
| Whether Devin is a fit custodial parent | Devin is unfit due to financial instability, past child-support arrears, alleged tax/insurance issues, and questionable conduct (trapping) | Devin admitted past arrears but argued overall fitness and appropriate care; trapping is culturally normal and not disqualifying | Court: both parents fit; no abuse of discretion in finding Devin fit |
| Whether modification is in the child’s best interests | Continuing with mother is better given her long-term primary care and school accountability efforts; advantages cited by Devin are insufficient | Ansley offers academic, extracurricular, social, and lifestyle benefits Hunter reasonably prefers; Hunter’s stated reasons are sound and outweigh other factors | Court: modification is in Hunter’s best interests; Hunter’s preference outweighed other factors |
| Standard of review on appeal | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Court: custody reviewed de novo on record but decision upheld absent abuse of discretion; trial court’s credibility findings and factual weighing affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98 (2015) (standard that child custody determinations are entrusted to trial court discretion; reviewed de novo on the record with deference absent abuse)
- State on behalf of Jakai C. v. Tiffany M., 292 Neb. 68 (2015) (elements required to modify custody: material change affecting best interests, then proof modification is in child’s best interests)
- Floerchinger v. Floerchinger, 24 Neb. App. 120 (2016) (child’s reasoned preference can constitute a material change supporting custody modification)
- Vogel v. Vogel, 262 Neb. 1030 (2002) (child’s preference entitled to consideration if of sufficient age and based on sound reasoning)
- Hossack v. Hossack, 176 Neb. 368 (1964) (court warned that mere advantages of one parent’s environment or advancing age of child alone do not justify custody changes absent showing welfare demands change)
- Robb v. Robb, 268 Neb. 694 (2004) (factors to consider in custody: relationship to each parent, child’s wishes, health, abuse evidence, and other pertinent factors)
- Miles v. Miles, 231 Neb. 782 (1989) (custody modification based on child preference and deterioration of parent–child relationship)