Steffy v. Steffy
287 Neb. 529
| Neb. | 2014Background
- Parents divorced in 2008; father (Brian Steffy) awarded primary custody of son Jakob (born 2001); mother Randi (now Stenson) given reasonable visitation and ordered to pay support.
- Jakob has an autism spectrum disorder and receives an IEP at Plattsmouth with 12–15 hours/week of ABA therapy; school and providers in Plattsmouth described his progress as strong.
- In 2010 Brian sought modification: sole legal custody, increased child support, and permission to relocate Jakob from Nebraska to Texas for better employment prospects and enhanced ABA services; Randi opposed removal.
- At bench trial evidence showed Texas may offer more ABA providers and higher teacher salaries, but Brian’s and Sheri’s (wife) Texas employment was speculative; Randi planned to return to Nebraska on retirement and expressed concerns about loss of comfortable visitation settings.
- The district court denied removal, finding Brian failed to show a legitimate reason and that relocation would be in Jakob’s best interests; the Court of Appeals reversed under plain error review; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court properly exercised plain error review despite appellant’s briefing defects | Brian’s defective brief should not bar review of merits; Court of Appeals properly reviewed for plain error and reversed | Randi argued Court of Appeals erred in applying plain error and reweighing evidence | Supreme Court affirmed use of plain error discretion but held Court of Appeals erred in reversing on merits; remanded to reinstate district court judgment on removal |
| Whether Brian showed a legitimate reason to relocate Jakob to Texas | Relocation for significant career enhancement and better ABA services constituted a legitimate reason | Randi contended motives were specious and move would harm visitation and child’s progress | Supreme Court declined to decide threshold legitimacy question because best‑interests ruling dispositive; upheld district court on best interests |
| Whether relocation was in Jakob’s best interests (quality of life factors) | Brian asserted Texas would improve family income, housing and ABA service availability, enhancing Jakob’s quality of life | Randi argued current services meet Jakob’s needs, change could disrupt progress, and employment prospects in Texas were speculative | Court held district court did not plainly err: record supports finding move would not enhance Jakob’s quality of life; denied removal |
| Impact on noncustodial parent contact and visitation arrangements | Brian argued he would accommodate visitation and courts can craft reasonable visitation to preserve relationship | Randi argued relocation would force inconvenient hotel visits, reduce comfortable family settings, and impair post‑retirement contact | Court weighed visitation impact against relocation and found meaningful adverse effects; this supported denial of removal |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 264 Neb. 232 (trial court’s best‑interests framework for relocation) (court set out three‑part best‑interests analysis)
- Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035 (legitimate reason threshold and considerations for relocation)
- Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242 (career enrichment as legitimate reason for relocation)
- Vogel v. Vogel, 262 Neb. 1030 (best interests are paramount; visitation and reasonable arrangements considered)
- Caniglia v. Caniglia, 285 Neb. 930 (consideration of motives and potential antagonism between parents)
- In re Interest of Jamyia M., 281 Neb. 964 (appellate brief and assignment‑of‑error requirements)
- Connelly v. City of Omaha, 284 Neb. 131 (standards on appellate review and deference to trial court findings)