Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal, 309 Neb. 376

Eric and Nessa divorced in 2018 and were awarded joint legal and joint physical custody of their minor child; a parenting plan approved by the court governed decisionmaking, notification, and relocation procedures.
The parenting plan grants joint legal custody (mutual authority over major decisions including education) and contains a clause requiring court application and notice for moving the child out of Nebraska; it does not expressly state the child must attend school in Burwell.
In July 2020 Nessa moved the child from Burwell to Springfield (about a 4-hour drive); she enrolled the child in a Springfield school over Eric’s objection after mediation failed.
Eric filed motions (Aug. 11–12, 2020) seeking an ex parte order requiring the child to remain in the Burwell School District, an order to show cause for contempt, a writ of assistance, and attorney fees; the district court denied the motions, concluding the parenting plan did not require school attendance in Burwell.
The Nebraska Supreme Court found the district court’s denial deprived Eric of the opportunity to enforce his joint legal custody and parenting-time rights, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings (including an evidentiary hearing to determine violation and willfulness).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Eric)	Defendant's Argument (Nessa)	Held
Whether Nessa’s unilateral relocation and enrolling the child in a Springfield school violated the parties’ joint legal custody and warranted an order to show cause for contempt	Nessa violated joint legal custody by unilaterally deciding the child’s school (a fundamental decision) without court application or Eric’s consent; an evidentiary hearing is required	Parenting plan does not require the child to attend school in Burwell; only out-of-state moves require court application, so her move was permissible	Reversed: court abused discretion in denying order to show cause; school choice is a fundamental decision under joint legal custody and an evidentiary hearing is required to determine violation and willfulness
Whether Nessa’s relocation so interfered with Eric’s parenting time that contempt proceedings were warranted	The 4-hour distance has made Eric’s weekday after‑school visits and Sunday‑overnight parenting time virtually impossible; he has been deprived of court‑ordered parenting time	Nessa observed that she has custody during the school year per the plan and argued no contempt	Reversed: relocation significantly interfered with parenting time; district court erred by failing to order a hearing to assess contempt and sanctions

State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933, 932 N.W.2d 692 (2019) (addresses school‑attendance as a fundamental custody decision tied to legal custody)
Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954, 621 N.W.2d 70 (2000) (defines joint legal custody as joint authority over major decisions regarding the child)
deBoer v. deBoer, 24 Neb. App. 612, 892 N.W.2d 879 (2017) (explains need for an evidentiary hearing to prove civil contempt absent stipulation or acts in judge’s presence)
Martin v. Martin, 294 Neb. 106, 881 N.W.2d 174 (2016) (discusses civil contempt as a remedy to enforce court orders for the benefit of a private party)
State ex rel. Beck v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 174 Neb. 172, 116 N.W.2d 281 (1962) (recognizes the inherent power of courts to punish for contempt)