Yori v. Helms, 307 Neb. 375

Background

Parties divorced by decree in March 2017 awarding joint legal and physical custody; parenting plan was mediated and required alcohol abstinence and Soberlink monitoring, transportation cooperation, and shared payment of medical/athletic expenses.
Yori filed contempt applications alleging ~60 violations by Helms (alcohol use, missed Soberlink tests, changed monitoring settings, failure to transport child to school/athletic/educational events, disparagement of Yori, failure to reimburse expenses).
After hearings, the district court found Helms in willful contempt (May 1, 2019), imposed a 21-day jail commitment suspended on compliance, and modified the parenting plan (e.g., Yori given "final say" on athletics/education/medical, Helms barred from attending practices, transportation rules, required counseling, and a 36‑month purge plan). Helms appealed (S-19-520).
While that appeal was pending, Yori moved to enforce the contempt order; the court entered a commitment (Aug 1, 2019) and a purge order (Aug 2, 2019) conditioning release on payments, counseling, and temporarily reducing Helms’ parenting time from a 7/7 to a 10/4 schedule pending review on Dec 19, 2019. Helms appealed that order (S-19-840).
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court on the first appeal (modifications upheld as equitable, remedial relief within contempt power) and dismissed the second appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the temporary parenting-time reduction did not constitute a final, appealable order.

Issues

Issue	Yori (Plaintiff) Argument	Helms (Defendant) Argument	Held
Whether the district court exceeded its contempt/remedial authority by modifying the parenting plan	Modifications were equitable, remedial, and authorized to enforce Yori’s rights under § 42‑364.15(1); needed to protect child and ensure compliance	Modifications were punitive, not coercive; not reasonably necessary and deprived Helms of rights beyond what contempt may impose	Court: Modifications were remedial, reasonably related to contemptuous conduct, and within equitable contempt power; no abuse of discretion (affirmed)
Whether specific provisions (transportation control, ban on attending practices, "final say") were punitive or unpurgeable	These targeted documented misconduct (intoxication at events, failure to transport, interference with activities) and were related to remedying contempt	Such provisions are unconditional, cannot be purged by compliance, and thus are punitive and excessive	Court: Evidence supported relation between misconduct and the measures; provisions were appropriate remedial relief, not punitive
Whether the district court had jurisdiction during pendency of the first appeal and whether the August 2019 purge order was appealable	Court retains jurisdiction in aid of appeal under § 42‑351(2) to enter orders about parenting time/access; the purge order was a permissible in‑aid order and temporary	Helms: once appeal perfected trial court lost jurisdiction to further modify the same parenting provisions; the August order reduced parenting time and thus was appealable	Court: § 42‑351(2) permits limited in‑aid orders; however, the August parenting‑time reduction was temporary (set for review in ~4½ months) and did not affect a substantial right — not a final order. Second appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Braun v. Braun, 306 Neb. 890, 947 N.W.2d 694 (2020) (civil contempt standard of review and remedial/coercive character explained)
Martin v. Martin, 294 Neb. 106, 881 N.W.2d 174 (2016) (trial court authority to provide equitable relief in contempt proceedings enforcing parenting rights)
Picard v. P & C Group 1, 306 Neb. 292, 945 N.W.2d 183 (2020) (statutory authority to modify parenting/access orders to enforce parental rights)
Burns v. Burns, 293 Neb. 633, 879 N.W.2d 375 (2016) (limitations on trial court action while appeal is pending)
Cullinane v. Beverly Enters.-Neb., 300 Neb. 210, 912 N.W.2d 774 (2018) (jurisdiction in aid of appeal doctrine)
State v. Fredrickson, 306 Neb. 81, 943 N.W.2d 701 (2020) (definition and requisites of a final, appealable order)
Tilson v. Tilson, 299 Neb. 64, 907 N.W.2d 31 (2018) (temporary custody/visitation orders and substantial‑right analysis)
In re Guardianship of Sophia M., 271 Neb. 133, 710 N.W.2d 312 (2006) (temporary orders that briefly disturb parental relationship are not final)