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 under a court-approved parenting plan.
The parenting plan grants joint legal custody (mutual decisionmaking on education and health) and contains change-of-residence notification provisions; it requires court application only for moving the child out of Nebraska.
In July 2020 Nessa moved the child from Burwell, NE, to Springfield, NE (about a 4-hour drive) and enrolled the child in a Springfield school without Eric’s consent or an application to the court.
Eric filed an ex parte motion asking the court to order the child to remain in the Burwell School District, an order to show cause for contempt, and a writ of assistance; the district court denied the motions, concluding the parenting 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 because (1) school choice is a fundamental decision under joint legal custody and Nessa’s unilateral enrollment could be a willful violation of the decree, and (2) the relocation substantially interfered with Eric’s court-ordered parenting time; the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Eric)	Defendant's Argument (Nessa)	Held
Whether Nessa’s unilateral move and enrollment of the child in Springfield violated the parties’ joint legal custody and supported an order to show cause for contempt	Unilateral school change violated joint legal custody (education is a fundamental decision); merits evidentiary hearing to prove violation and willfulness	Parenting plan contains no explicit requirement that child attend school in Burwell; no court application was required for an intra-state school change	Reversed: school choice is a fundamental decision under joint legal custody; denial of order to show cause was an abuse of discretion; evidentiary hearing required to determine violation and willfulness
Whether Nessa’s relocation unjustifiably interfered with Eric’s parenting time and warranted relief	Move (≈4-hour distance) made Eric’s weekday and Sunday overnight parenting time virtually impossible, thus interfering with court-ordered parenting time	Parties agreed to meet halfway for exchanges; parenting time allocation in plan gives mother custody during school year except limited times	Reversed: court failed to consider substantial interference with parenting time; remand for proceedings on contempt and parenting-time impact

State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933 (2019) (classifies where a child will attend school as a fundamental decision)
Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954 (2000) (defines joint legal custody as joint authority for major decisions)
Martin v. Martin, 294 Neb. 106 (2016) (discusses civil contempt to enforce private-party rights under court orders)
deBoer v. deBoer, 24 Neb. App. 612 (2017) (civil contempt requires evidentiary hearing absent stipulation or acts in judge’s presence)
State ex rel. Beck v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 174 Neb. 172 (1962) (courts of record have power to punish contempt)
Rhodes v. Rhodes, 210 Neb. 373 (1982) (civil contempt characterization and enforcement)