Vyhlidal v. Vyhlidal, 311 Neb. 495

Background

2018 decree (marital settlement agreement with integrated parenting plan) awarded the parties "joint legal and physical custody" of their child and incorporated a parenting plan that required parents to "discuss" decision-making and to notify the other before changing the child’s residence; parenting plan also required mediation before filing legal action.
In June–August 2020, Nessa informed Eric she planned to move the child from Burwell to Springfield, then moved the child (Aug. 12) and enrolled him in Springfield school two days after moving, without Eric’s agreement.
Eric objected, moved for an order to show cause and writ of assistance; the district court initially denied relief, and this Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Nessa willfully violated the decree.
At the remand hearing, Nessa argued she complied because she had discussed the move with Eric and attempted mediation; the district court found no violation or willfulness and vacated the show-cause order.
On this appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that (1) "joint legal custody" must be given its statutory meaning (mutual authority for fundamental decisions including residence and school), (2) Nessa violated the decree by moving and re-enrolling the child without mutual agreement, and (3) the violation was willful; the Court reversed and remanded with directions for coercive relief (including return of the child and attorney fees).

Issues

Issue	Eric's Argument	Nessa's Argument	Held
Proper interpretation of "joint legal custody" in the integrated decree	Term is a statutory term of art meaning mutual authority for fundamental decisions; the decree must be read as an integrated judgment	Parenting plan text only requires discussion; the plan is silent on mutual authority so mutuality should not be imposed	The term must be construed per the Parenting Act; joint legal custody requires mutual decisionmaking
Whether moving the child and changing schools violated the decree	Moving and re-enrollment are fundamental decisions (residence, education) requiring mutual agreement; unilateral action violated the plan	She notified Eric, discussed the move, and attempted mediation, so she complied with the plan	Unilateral move and re-enrollment without mutual agreement violated the parenting plan
Whether the violation was willful (element of contempt)	Nessa acted knowingly contrary to the decree after Eric objected and without seeking court modification, so violation was willful	She subjectively believed the plan required only discussion and relied on that belief; not willful	Violation was willful; Eric proved willfulness by clear and convincing evidence
Appropriate remedy/sanction	Contempt remedies and coercive relief (return child, attorney fees, coercive sanctions) are proper to enforce compliance	(Implicit) district court previously declined coercive relief	Court directed district court to find willful contempt, order child returned to Burwell school and residence, award Eric reasonable attorney fees, and impose coercive sanctions as needed (with leave to consider modification if warranted)

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. Johnson, 308 Neb. 623 (interpreting decree meaning as a question of law)
Becher v. Becher, 970 N.W.2d 472 (Neb. 2022) (three-part standard of review and contempt proof standard)
Bayne v. Bayne, 302 Neb. 858 (requirement to give effect to all parts of a decree)
Kalkowski v. Nebraska Nat. Trails Museum Found., 290 Neb. 798 (terms of art should be given their specialized meaning)
Stone Land & Livestock Co. v. HBE, 309 Neb. 970 (a district court abuses discretion when it makes an error of law)