Sulzle v. Sulzle
318 Neb. 194
Neb.2024Background
- Emily and Joshua Sulzle divorced in 2020; Emily was awarded primary custody of their four children with a set parenting plan.
- In 2022, Joshua (father) filed for a modification to adjust child support and alleged Emily was denying his parenting time; Emily counterclaimed, seeking changes to custody and parenting time due to alleged material changes.
- The case involved frequent changes in Joshua’s legal representation, confusion about scheduling, and failures by Joshua to appear at key hearings.
- At the modification hearing, Joshua did not appear, but an attorney from his (former) law firm, Meghan Wolf, appeared by Zoom and participated.
- The trial court granted Emily sole legal and physical custody, gave Joshua scheduled parenting time with two sons, but placed all visitation with his two daughters at Emily’s sole discretion.
- Joshua filed a motion for a new trial, claiming lack of notice and improper procedural handling; the trial court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lack of notice and representation at hearing | Joshua: No written order, no actual notice; not represented by registered counsel | Emily: Joshua's attorney (from same firm) appeared; notice was effective | Sufficient notice given via counsel; presence of attorney satisfied due process; no abuse of discretion |
| Material change of circumstances for modification | Joshua: No new facts to justify modification | Emily: Poor relationship, noncompliance with plan, communication issues | Sufficient evidence supported material change based on deterioration of relationships and communication |
| Proper scope of judicial authority over visitation | Joshua: Granting mother sole discretion is unlawful delegation | Emily: Discretion needed due to girls’ preferences, best interests | Unlawful delegation; court must determine visitation schedule itself; reversed and remanded on this point |
| Best interest and reasonable basis for sons’ visitation | Joshua: Schedule unreasonable | Emily: Changes justified by communication and logistics | Modifications for sons’ visitation were reasonable and in children’s best interests; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Roemer v. Maly, 248 Neb. 741 (notice to attorney of record constitutes notice to party; appearance by firm member sufficient)
- Hossack v. Hossack, 176 Neb. 368 (conduct alienating children may justify custody changes)
- Deacon v. Deacon, 207 Neb. 193 (judicial authority over visitation cannot be delegated)
- VanSkiver v. VanSkiver, 303 Neb. 664 (permissible to suspend visitation but not delegate judicial authority)
- Barth v. Barth, 22 Neb. App. 241 (improper to give a parent discretion over other’s visitation)