Windham v. Kroll, 951 N.W.2d 744

Windham and Kroll were long-term partners; Kroll is the biological mother of two children and Windham is nonbiological but was adjudicated to stand in loco parentis in a 2012 consent judgment.
The 2012 judgment (approved by the court) granted joint legal and physical custody and split many child-related expenses 50/50, including private school tuition and required monthly college-savings contributions.
After separation, disputes continued; in 2017 Kroll sought sole custody and child support; temporary orders in 2018–2019 gave Kroll sole custody and set temporary support and reallocated some expenses.
The parties mediated and agreed in 2019 to give Kroll sole legal and physical custody; they asked the court to adopt the mediated parenting plan but disagreed about modifying support-related provisions from the 2012 judgment.
The district court found the change to sole custody was a material change in circumstances, modified support provisions (set guideline monthly support, eliminated Windham’s college-savings contributions, and reallocated tuition responsibility to 33 1/3% Windham / 66 2/3% Kroll), and Kroll appealed arguing a higher modification standard should apply.

Issue	Kroll's Argument	Windham's Argument	Held
What legal standard governs modification of support-related provisions in a judgment establishing in loco parentis rights?	Provisions voluntarily agreed to and incorporated into a consent judgment may be modified only for fraud or gross inequity.	Provisions that pertain to the support of minor children are modifiable on a showing of a material change in circumstances affecting the child's best interests.	The ordinary material-change-in-circumstances standard applies to support-related provisions affecting minor children; the fraud/gross-inequity standard is inapplicable.
Did the district court abuse its discretion in modifying tuition allocation and college-savings obligations?	The court should not have modified those provisions under any lesser standard.	The change from joint to sole custody and Windham’s changed finances constituted a material change justifying prospective modification.	No abuse of discretion: the custody change and evidence of changed finances supported modification.

Reinsch v. Reinsch, 259 Neb. 564, 611 N.W.2d 86 (court rejected application of fraud/gross-inequity standard to modification of child-support provisions in an incorporated agreement)
Carlson v. Carlson, 299 Neb. 526, 909 N.W.2d 351 (distinguishes post-majority support in property settlements from modifiable child-support provisions)
Whilde v. Whilde, 298 Neb. 473, 904 N.W.2d 695 (modification of in loco parentis rights may require inquiry into whether the in loco parentis relationship has changed)
Caniglia v. Caniglia, 285 Neb. 930, 830 N.W.2d 207 (child-related expenses listed in statute are a subset of child support and are modifiable upon material change)
Windham v. Griffin, 295 Neb. 279, 887 N.W.2d 710 (parental preference doctrine applies in disputes between natural parent and one standing in loco parentis)
Lenz v. Lenz, 222 Neb. 85, 382 N.W.2d 323 (special schooling expenses are in the nature of child support and are prospectively modifiable)
Coffey v. Coffey, 11 Neb. App. 788, 661 N.W.2d 327 (financial accounts earmarked for children’s education are closely related to custody/support and may be modified when custody/support are at issue)