Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal, 309 Neb. 376

Background

Eric and Nessa divorced in 2018 and were awarded joint legal and joint physical custody of their minor child; a court‑approved parenting plan governs decisionmaking and residence changes.
The parenting plan grants joint legal custody (mutual authority over major decisions, including education) and contains a "Change of Child’s Residence" provision requiring notification and limiting out‑of‑state moves without court approval; it does not expressly state where the child must attend school.
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 an ex parte motion to require the child to remain in the Burwell School District, a motion for an order to show cause (contempt), a writ of assistance, and requested attorney fees.
The district court denied Eric’s motions, concluding the parenting plan did not require the child to attend school in Burwell and that its relocation procedures applied to out‑of‑state moves; Eric appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding the court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on whether Nessa willfully violated the decree and by failing to consider the relocation’s interference with Eric’s court‑ordered parenting time.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Eric)	Defendant's Argument (Nessa)	Held
Whether Nessa’s unilateral school relocation violated the parties’ joint legal custody and justified an order to show cause/contempt proceeding	Nessa’s unilateral decision to change the child’s school breached joint legal custody (education is a fundamental decision); court should order show cause and hold hearing	Parenting plan contains no provision requiring the child to attend school in Burwell; no contempt	Reversed: school placement is a fundamental decision under joint legal custody; evidentiary hearing required to determine violation and willfulness.
Whether the parenting plan’s relocation/"change of residence" clause limited applications to out‑of‑state moves only	Clause and joint legal custody require court application/notice for significant residence changes that affect decisionmaking and parenting time	Court below read the clause as governing only out‑of‑state moves; thus no violation	The court erred to focus solely on the clause’s notification language; substantive joint custody rights (education/parenting time) must be considered at hearing.
Whether Eric’s parenting time was substantially interfered with by the move	The 4‑hour distance has made weekday visits and Sunday overnights virtually impossible; this is significant interference warranting relief	Nessa emphasized custody during the school year and the lack of explicit school‑location language in plan	Held that the move significantly interferes with Eric’s parenting time and the court should assess contempt and remedies at a hearing.

Key Cases Cited

State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933, 932 N.W.2d 692 (2019) (school placement is a fundamental decision tied to legal custody)
Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954, 621 N.W.2d 70 (2000) (defining joint legal custody as mutual authority over major decisions)
deBoer v. deBoer, 24 Neb. App. 612, 892 N.W.2d 879 (2017) (evidentiary hearing required to prove civil contempt absent stipulation or acts in judge’s presence)
Martin v. Martin, 294 Neb. 106, 881 N.W.2d 174 (2016) (civil contempt preserves/enforces private parties’ rights under court orders)
State ex rel. Beck v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 174 Neb. 172, 116 N.W.2d 281 (1962) (courts of record have inherent power to punish contempt)