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 by decree and an agreed parenting plan.
The parenting plan grants joint legal custody (mutual decisionmaking on education) and contains provisions about notifying the other parent for changes of the child’s residence and certain court application procedures for moves (including restrictions on out-of-state moves).
In July 2020 Nessa moved the child from Burwell to Springfield (about a 4-hour drive) and enrolled the child in a Springfield school without Eric’s consent after mediation failed.
Eric filed ex parte motions seeking (1) an order requiring the child remain in the Burwell School District, (2) an order to show cause for contempt, and (3) a writ of assistance to recover custody; the district court denied the motions, finding no provision requiring the child to attend school in Burwell.
The district court also noted Nessa’s custody during the school year but did not fully address Eric’s loss of weekday and some weekend parenting time caused by the relocation.
Eric appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the district court abused its discretion by denying an order to show cause without an evidentiary hearing on whether Nessa willfully violated the decree and interfered with Eric’s parenting time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of an order to show cause for contempt was proper after mother relocated the child and changed the child’s school without father’s consent	Vyhlidal: Relocation and unilateral school change violated joint legal custody and deprived him of court-ordered parenting time; contempt proceedings and an evidentiary hearing were warranted	Nessa: Parenting plan contains no provision requiring the child to attend school in Burwell; court application language addressed out-of-state moves and did not bar the move to Springfield	Court: Reversed. Unilateral school change implicates joint legal custody (education is a fundamental decision) and the relocation significantly interfered with parenting time; denial of an order to show cause was an abuse of discretion and an evidentiary hearing is required
Whether the unilateral change of the child’s school constitutes a willful violation of the decree requiring contempt procedures	Vyhlidal: School choice is a fundamental decision under joint legal custody; unilateral decision may be willful violation	Nessa: School attendance not explicitly fixed by the parenting plan; thus no contempt	Court: Held that whether the act was a willful violation must be determined at an evidentiary hearing so Eric can prove both violation and willfulness

State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933 (2019) (school attendance is a fundamental custody decision)
deBoer v. deBoer, 24 Neb. App. 612 (2017) (civil contempt requires an evidentiary hearing unless acts occurred in judge’s presence or parties stipulate)
Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954 (2000) (definition and effect of joint legal custody)
Martin v. Martin, 294 Neb. 106 (2016) (civil contempt used to enforce private parties’ rights under a court order)
State ex rel. Beck v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 174 Neb. 172 (1962) (courts possess inherent power to punish for contempt)
Rhodes v. Rhodes, 210 Neb. 373 (1982) (characterization of civil contempt)