Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal, 309 Neb. 376

Background

Eric and Nessa Vyhlidal 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 and residence changes.
The parenting plan required notification for a parent’s residence change and required court application and notice before moving the child out of Nebraska; it did 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) and enrolled the child in a Springfield school over Eric’s objection; mediation failed.
Eric filed an ex parte motion to require the child remain in Burwell, a motion for an order to show cause (contempt), and a writ of assistance; the district court denied the motions, reasoning the plan did not require school attendance in Burwell.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held the district court abused its discretion by denying the order to show cause, concluding school choice is a fundamental decision under joint legal custody and remanding for further proceedings (including an evidentiary hearing on contempt and willfulness).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nessa’s unilateral relocation and school change violated the parties’ joint legal custody and warranted an order to show cause for contempt	Eric: Joint legal custody gives him equal authority over fundamental decisions (including school); unilateral change violated the decree and parenting plan	Nessa: Parenting plan contains no provision requiring attendance in Burwell; relocation permissible absent an out‑of‑state move application	Court: School choice is a fundamental decision under joint legal custody; denial of an order to show cause was an abuse of discretion and remanded for hearing
Whether the parenting plan required the child to attend school in Burwell	Eric: Education decisions require mutual decisionmaking; moving child without consent breached the plan	Nessa: No express clause mandating Burwell school; only out‑of‑state moves trigger court application	Court: Even if not explicit, joint legal custody covers school choice; the question requires factual development at hearing
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required to prove civil contempt and willfulness	Eric: A hearing is needed so he can present evidence of a violation and willfulness	Nessa: District court concluded no contempt because plan lacked an explicit school clause, so no hearing was necessary	Court: Civil contempt requires a hearing (absent stipulation or acts in court); remanded for evidentiary hearing to assess violation and willfulness
Whether the relocation interfered with Eric’s parenting time enough to warrant relief	Eric: Move (≈4‑hour drive) made weekday visits and Sunday overnight parenting time virtually impossible	Nessa: Parties agreed to halfway exchanges; during the school year child primarily resides with Mom	Court: Relocation significantly interfered with court‑ordered parenting time; district court abused discretion by not addressing that interference

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Beck v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 174 Neb. 172 (1962) (recognizes contempt power inherent in courts of record)
Martin v. Martin, 294 Neb. 106 (2016) (civil contempt enforces private parties’ rights under court orders)
deBoer v. deBoer, 24 Neb. App. 612 (2017) (evidentiary hearing required to prove civil contempt unless acts occurred in court or parties stipulate)
Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954 (2000) (defines joint legal custody as joint authority over major decisions regarding a child’s welfare)
State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933 (2019) (classifies school attendance as a fundamental decision under legal custody)