Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal
311 Neb. 495
| Neb. | 2022Background
- Parties divorced by decree (June 2018) that incorporated a marital settlement agreement and an attached parenting plan awarding the parents "joint legal and physical custody" of their child.
- Parenting plan required notification for changes of a parent’s residence, prohibited out-of-state moves without court permission, set mediation as a remediation step, and stated parents agreed to "Joint Legal Custody (decision-making)."
- In June–August 2020, mother (Nessa) informed father (Eric) she would move the child from Burwell to Springfield and then enrolled the child in the Springfield school over Eric’s objection; she did not obtain court modification or father’s consent.
- On initial motion, district court denied father’s request for an order to show cause; this Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding school choice is a fundamental decision under joint legal custody.
- After the hearing on remand the district court again found no violation or willfulness, prompting this appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vyhlidal) | Defendant's Argument (Vyhlidal) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper interpretation of the parenting plan and meaning of "joint legal custody" | Term carries statutory meaning: mutual authority and responsibility for fundamental decisions (including school and residence) | Parenting plan only requires discussion; its language controls, not statutory definitions | Court: "joint legal custody" is a term of art; absent contrary definition the statutory meaning applies (mutual decisionmaking) |
| Whether mother violated the decree by moving child and changing school without father’s agreement | Mother moved and enrolled the child despite father’s objection and lack of mutual agreement, thus violating the joint legal custody requirement | Mother notified father, discussed the move, and attempted mediation, so she complied with the plan | Court: Mother violated the parenting plan; discussion and mediation attempts did not substitute for required mutual agreement |
| Whether mother’s violation was willful (element of civil contempt) | Father: mother acted intentionally and knew her actions violated the decree; willfulness proven by clear and convincing evidence | Mother: she believed plan required only discussion, lacked subjective knowledge that her actions violated the court order | Court: Willfulness proven — mother’s subjective belief was erroneous and not a defense; contempt requires intentional violation with knowledge |
| Appropriate remedy/sanctions | Father seeks coercive relief: find contempt, return child to former residence and school, attorney fees, and other sanctions to secure compliance | Mother urged no contempt and no coercive sanctions | Court: Reversed district court; remanded with directions to find mother in willful contempt, order immediate return to Burwell/school, award attorney fees, and impose coercive sanctions as appropriate (district court may consider modification separately) |
Key Cases Cited
- Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal, 309 Neb. 376 (reversing denial of show-cause and holding school choice is a fundamental decision under joint legal custody)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 308 Neb. 623 (decree meaning is question of law determined from the decree itself)
- Becher v. Becher, 970 N.W.2d 472 (civil contempt standard: elements and burdens; remedial nature of contempt sanctions)
- Bayne v. Bayne, 302 Neb. 858 (principles of construing integrated judgments and giving effect to all parts)
- Stone Land & Livestock Co. v. HBE, 309 Neb. 970 (district court abuses discretion when it makes an error of law)
- Kalkowski v. Nebraska Nat. Trails Museum Found., 290 Neb. 798 (terms of art are to be given their specialized meanings)