Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Omaha, Nebraska family law lawyers represented the parties in a paternity and custody dispute.

n February 16, 2021, the parties entered into a stipulated order for paternity, custody, and child support. The Douglas County District Court entered an order awarding Jamar and Erika joint legal custody of their son, with Erika receiving sole physical custody. Erika was also granted permission to move to California with the parties' child effective March 1. Jamar was awarded "[r]egular" parenting time from the last Sunday of each month until the following Wednesday, as well as certain holiday parenting time. Also, commencing in 2023, Jamar was awarded significant summer parenting time. Both parties were granted an additional 21 days of vacation time and agreed to give each other at least 14 days' notice prior to exercising that time. The parties agreed that Jamar would pay his own expenses to travel to California to exercise his regular parenting time. However, travel expenses for holiday and summer parenting time were to be split between the parties. To offset Jamar's travel costs, he was not ordered to pay child support. In addition to parenting time, the parties were awarded telephone contact with the child "each day while [he was] at the other parent's home, at reasonable times of the day and evening."

* * *

The district court entered a modification order on January 2, 2024. In its findings, the court found Erika's "credibility to be suspect on several occasions." It initially noted that the February 2021 stipulated order was obtained by Erika "under the guise of job opportunities not available to [her] in Nebraska," yet she testified that she had "not worked for over a year and had no plans to work in the immediate future even though she is capable of working." The court further observed that Erika had "moved 4 times within an 18-month period," and at different times had lived with her father "free of charge," had her own residence, and intended to relocate to live with a boyfriend "an hour away." The court was troubled by Erika's "numerous filings" in California "attempting to get jurisdiction not just transferred to California but she sought orders which if granted would have eliminated [Jamar's] ability to exercise any parenting time with the minor child or would have severely limited his ability to exercise parenting time or would have required that parenting time to be supervised." It noted that "[m]any of these filings in California" were filed after Jamar filed his contempt action and complaint to modify. The court found that "[t]hese filings, based on the timing and the testimony of [Erika] were done deliberately to attempt to prevent [Jamar] from exercising his parenting time and to prevent the minor child from being returned" to Nebraska. It pointed out that the allegations in Erika's November 2022 emergency filing in California were determined to be unfounded by January 2023, yet Erika filed for a protection order in March raising the same allegations. Erika "further included allegations of 'domestic violence' based on [Jamar] taking law enforcement to [Erika's] residence in California in a lawful attempt to execute a warrant/custody order issued by this Court . . . for the return of the minor child." The court found it "particularly troublesome" that Erika "specifically testified during trial that she 'has never done anything to prevent [Jamar] from seeing his child.'" The court stated, "This is directly contrary to the specific actions she took . . . asking that his parenting time be supervised and/or suspended altogether. The Court finds that not only did [Erika] purposely interfere in [Jamar's] parenting time but that she was attempting through numerous court filings . . . to put up numerous legal barriers" in California to prevent Jamar from seeing his child.

* * *

FAMILY LAW. CHILD CUSTODY MODIFICATION. The court addressed a modification of a child custody and parenting time order due to material changes in circumstances, finding it was in the child's best interests to change the order from a sole physical custody regime to joint physical custody with primary residence in Nebraska.

FAMILY LAW. CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION. The case involves jurisdictional disputes where the Nebraska court affirmed its jurisdiction over child custody matters despite concurrent legal actions in California initiated by one parent, resulting in a custody modification favoring the other parent.

FAMILY LAW. CONTEMPT AND PARENTING TIME. The court found one parent in contempt for deliberately interfering with the other parent's court-ordered parenting time, impacting the regular visitation schedule and communication rights in violation of a prior custody order.

FAMILY LAW. RELOCATION AND CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS. The court assessed relocating a child from California back to Nebraska under the intertwined analysis of modifying custody and removal, concluding the best interests of the child were served by the relocation.

FAMILY LAW. IMPUTED INCOME FOR CHILD SUPPORT. The court upheld the use of imputed income to determine child support obligations, based on the non-custodial parent's earning capacity, even in the absence of current employment.

FAMILY LAW. ATTORNEY FEES AWARD. The district court justified awarding attorney fees to one parent due to the other parent's frivolous filings and persistent legal actions in another jurisdiction, despite clear jurisdictional rulings supporting the prevailing party.

Key Phrases Modification order. Material change in circumstances. Primary residence. Joint legal custody. Best interests of the child.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: