- 434 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

Jason Boyer, appellant, v. 

Lauren Boyer, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed January 17, 2017. No. A-16-150.

1. Child Custody: Visitation: Appeal and Error. Child custody and 

visitation determinations are matters initially entrusted to the discretion 

of the trial court, and although reviewed de novo on the record, the 

trial court’s determination will normally be affirmed absent an abuse 

of discretion.

2. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists when 

a judge, within the effective limits of authorized judicial power, elects 

to act or refrains from acting, and the selected option results in a decision which is untenable and unfairly deprives a litigant of a substantial 

right or a just result in matters submitted for disposition through a judicial system.

3. Child Custody. In order to prevail on a motion to remove a minor child 

to another jurisdiction, the custodial parent must first satisfy the court 

that he or she has a legitimate reason for leaving the state. After clearing 

that threshold, the custodial parent must next demonstrate that it is in the 

child’s best interests to continue living with him or her.

4. ____. Remarriage is a commonly found legitimate reason for removal of 

a child from the state.

5. ____. Absent evidence of an ulterior motive, a custodial parent’s desire 

to live with his or her current spouse, who is located outside of the custodial jurisdiction, is a legitimate reason to remove the minor child.

6. Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an 

analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy 

before it.

7. Child Custody: Visitation. In determining whether removal to another 

jurisdiction is in the child’s best interests, the court considers (1) each 

parent’s motives for seeking or opposing the move; (2) the potential 

the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the child and the 

custodial parent; and (3) the impact such move will have on contact 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

01/17/2017 09:08 AM CST
- 435 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

between the child and the noncustodial parent, when viewed in the light 

of reasonable visitation.

8. Child Custody. The ultimate question in evaluating the parties’ motives 

in seeking removal of a child to another jurisdiction is whether either 

party has elected or resisted removal in an effort to frustrate or manipulate the other party.

9. ____. In determining the potential that the removal to another jurisdiction holds for enhancing the quality of life of the child and the custodial parent, a court should evaluate the following considerations: (1) 

the emotional, physical, and developmental needs of the child; (2) the 

child’s opinion or preference as to where to live; (3) the extent to which 

the relocating parent’s income or employment will be enhanced; (4) the 

degree to which housing or living conditions would be improved; (5) the 

existence of educational advantages; (6) the quality of the relationship 

between the child and each parent; (7) the strength of the child’s ties to 

the present community and extended family there; (8) the likelihood that 

allowing or denying the removal would antagonize hostilities between 

the two parties; and (9) the living conditions and employment opportunities for the custodial parent because the best interests of the child are 

interwoven with the well-being of the custodial parent.

10. ____. The list of factors to be considered in determining the potential 

that the removal to another jurisdiction holds for enhancing the quality 

of life of the parent seeking removal and of the children should not be 

misconstrued as setting out a hierarchy of considerations, and depending on the circumstances of a particular case, any one consideration or 

combination of considerations may be variously weighted.

11. ____. The existence of educational advantages factor receives little or 

no weight when the custodial parent fails to prove that the new schools 

are superior.

12. Child Custody: Visitation. A noncustodial parent’s visitation rights are 

important, but a reduction in visitation time does not necessarily preclude a custodial parent from relocating for a legitimate reason.

13. Child Custody. In considering removal of a child to another jurisdiction, a court focuses on the ability of the noncustodial parent to maintain 

a meaningful parent-child relationship.

Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: David K. 

Arterburn, Judge. Affirmed.

Aimee S. Melton and A. Bree Robbins, of Reagan, Melton 

& Delaney, L.L.P., for appellant.

Robin L. Binning, of Binning & Plambeck, for appellee.
- 436 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

Moore, Chief Judge, and Pirtle, Judge, and McCormack, 

Retired Justice.

Pirtle, Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Jason Boyer appeals from an order of the district court for 

Sarpy County which granted Lauren Boyer’s request to remove 

the parties’ minor child from Nebraska to Alaska. We find that 

Lauren had a legitimate reason to request removal and find, 

upon our de novo review, that she sufficiently demonstrated 

removal would be in the child’s best interests. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order.

II. BACKGROUND

The parties met in Montana in 2004. Jason was a member of the U.S. Air Force at the time. The parties married in 

November 2006 in Nebraska, and they had one child together, 

Micah Boyer, who was born in 2010. During their relationship, they moved frequently due to Jason’s military service. 

The parties separated around February 2011. At that time, they 

were living in California. Following the separation, Lauren and 

Micah moved to Bellevue, Nebraska, where Lauren’s parents 

were living due to her father’s military service.

Jason filed for divorce in California, and a divorce decree 

was entered on April 25, 2013. Lauren was awarded physical 

custody of Micah, and the parties were awarded joint legal 

custody. Lauren was allowed to stay in Nebraska with Micah. 

Jason continued to live in California due to his military service 

until he was honorably discharged in August 2014. He moved 

to Nebraska in September 2014 to be closer to Micah.

Between February 2011 and September 2014, Jason made 

multiple trips to Nebraska to visit Micah. Jason also maintained contact with Micah through telephone and “Skype” conversations. Upon moving to Nebraska, Jason began spending 

time with Micah on a frequent basis.

After moving to Nebraska, Jason enrolled in a bachelor’s 

degree program, which he completed, and he also worked 
- 437 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

part time. At the time of trial in January 2016, he had been 

accepted into a master’s degree program in security management that was set to start the month after trial.

When Lauren first moved to Nebraska with Micah, they 

lived with Lauren’s parents for about 6 months and then moved 

into a two-bedroom apartment. At the time of trial, they were 

living with Lauren’s parents again, because Lauren had given 

up her apartment in anticipation of her move out of state.

After moving to Nebraska, Lauren went to nursing school, 

and in August 2014, she became a licensed practical nurse 

(LPN). She was employed as a nursing supervisor at a longterm care facility, where she had worked various shifts.

In the summer of 2014, Lauren met her current husband, 

Collin Stone, on a dating Web site. They began communicating 

with each other by telephone and e-mail, and she learned early 

on that Collin lived in Alaska. After about a year of communicating with him, Collin came to Nebraska in June 2015, and 

she met him in person for the first time. Micah met Collin as 

well. Lauren and Collin next saw each other in July, when they 

met each other in Montana. Micah was not present on this trip. 

During this visit, Lauren and Collin became engaged. They 

were married in August, after Jason filed this action. Lauren 

had never been to Alaska until August or September, after her 

marriage to Collin. The first time Micah went to Alaska was 

for Christmas. At trial, Lauren testified that three home pregnancy tests had indicated she was pregnant, although she had 

not yet been to a doctor.

On August 5, 2015, Jason filed an application to register the 

parties’ California dissolution order in Nebraska. He also filed 

a complaint for modification alleging that material changes in 

circumstances had occurred that warranted a modification to 

the decree. The alleged changes were that Jason had moved 

to Nebraska to be closer to Micah; that the parties mediated 

a parenting plan, and Jason had been actively involved in 

Micah’s life; that Lauren told Jason that she was getting married, moving to Alaska, and taking Micah with her; that such 

move would substantially impact Jason’s relationship with 
- 438 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

Micah; and that the move to Alaska is contrary to Micah’s best 

interests. He requested that the decree be modified to order 

Lauren to stay in Nebraska with Micah or, in the alternative, to 

order that Micah stay in Nebraska. If Lauren chooses to leave 

Nebraska, Jason asked that custody be awarded to him. Jason 

also requested an increase in the amount of his visitations previously ordered.

Lauren filed an answer and counterclaim on August 13, 

2015. In her counterclaim, she alleged that material changes 

in circumstances had occurred to warrant modification of the 

decree, in that joint legal custody was no longer in Micah’s 

best interests, that Lauren is remarried and plans to relocate 

to Alaska, that it was in Micah’s best interests to grant Lauren 

permission to remove Micah from Nebraska, and that Lauren 

has been responsible for providing the daily care and the financial support for Micah since the decree was entered. Lauren 

requested that the court award her legal and physical custody of Micah, subject to reasonable parenting time by Jason, 

and grant her permission to remove Micah from Nebraska 

to Alaska.

Following trial on Jason’s complaint for modification and 

Lauren’s counterclaim for modification, the trial court found 

that Lauren had met her burden of proof as to removal and 

granted her permission to remove Micah from Nebraska 

to Alaska.

III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Jason assigns that the trial court erred in (1) finding that 

Lauren had a legitimate reason to remove Micah from Nebraska 

to Alaska, (2) finding that removal was in Micah’s best interests, (3) receiving exhibit 39 into evidence, and (4) finding that 

the parties shall share joint legal custody of Micah effective 

January 1, 2018.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] Child custody and visitation determinations are matters initially entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and 
- 439 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

although reviewed de novo on the record, the trial court’s 

determination will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of 

discretion. Dragon v. Dragon, 21 Neb. App. 228, 838 N.W.2d 

56 (2013). A judicial abuse of discretion exists when a judge, 

within the effective limits of authorized judicial power, elects 

to act or refrains from acting, and the selected option results in 

a decision which is untenable and unfairly deprives a litigant 

of a substantial right or a just result in matters submitted for 

disposition through a judicial system. Id.

V. ANALYSIS

[3] Jason’s first two assignments of error relate to the trial 

court’s granting Lauren permission to remove Micah from 

Nebraska to Alaska. In order to prevail on a motion to remove 

a minor child to another jurisdiction, the custodial parent must 

first satisfy the court that he or she has a legitimate reason 

for leaving the state. After clearing that threshold, the custodial parent must next demonstrate that it is in the child’s 

best interests to continue living with him or her. Dragon v. 

Dragon, supra.

1. Legitimate Reason for

Leaving State

[4,5] The trial court found that Lauren’s remarriage and 

subsequent pregnancy constituted legitimate reasons to leave 

the state. It is well established in Nebraska case law that remarriage is a commonly found legitimate reason for removal of a 

child from the state. See, Vogel v. Vogel, 262 Neb. 1030, 637 

N.W.2d 611 (2002); Jack v. Clinton, 259 Neb. 198, 609 N.W.2d 

328 (2000); Harder v. Harder, 246 Neb. 945, 524 N.W.2d 325 

(1994); Curtis v. Curtis, 17 Neb. App. 230, 759 N.W.2d 269 

(2008). Our precedent has recognized that absent evidence 

of an ulterior motive, a custodial parent’s desire to live with 

his or her current spouse, who is located outside of the custodial jurisdiction, is a legitimate reason to remove the minor 

child. Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin, 288 Neb. 240, 847 N.W.2d 

79 (2014).
- 440 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

Jason argues that the facts in this case are distinguishable 

from the facts in prior cases where marriage has been found to 

be a legitimate reason for removal. He contends that in cases 

such as Vogel v. Vogel, supra, and McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 

264 Neb. 232, 647 N.W.2d 577 (2002), the parties met their 

spouses in Nebraska and sought removal after the new spouse 

needed to relocate for career reasons, which is not the situation here. Lauren and Collin did not meet in Nebraska, and 

removal is not being sought for a career reason of Collin’s. 

Jason also argues that because Lauren met her current husband 

online and did not meet him in person until a few months 

before their marriage, her marriage is somehow less credible 

than that of a couple meeting by other means. As the trial 

court found, there is no basis in the case law to treat this 

marriage differently than those found in other cases. We conclude that Lauren’s marriage to Collin was a legitimate reason 

for removal.

[6] Having concluded that Lauren’s remarriage was a legitimate reason for removal, we need not determine whether her 

pregnancy was also a legitimate reason. An appellate court is 

not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not necessary to 

adjudicate the case and controversy before it. Doty v. West Gate 

Bank, 292 Neb. 787, 874 N.W.2d 839 (2016).

2. Best Interests

Having determined Lauren met the threshold requirement, 

we will consider upon our de novo review whether she demonstrated that removing Micah from Nebraska is in his best interests. See Dragon v. Dragon, 21 Neb. App. 228, 838 N.W.2d 

56 (2013).

[7] In determining whether removal to another jurisdiction 

is in the child’s best interests, the court considers (1) each parent’s motives for seeking or opposing the move; (2) the potential the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the 

child and the custodial parent; and (3) the impact such move 

will have on contact between the child and the noncustodial 

parent, when viewed in the light of reasonable visitation. Id.
- 441 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

(a) Each Parent’s Motives

[8] The ultimate question in evaluating the parties’ motives 

in seeking removal of a child to another jurisdiction is whether 

either party has elected or resisted removal in an effort to frustrate or manipulate the other party. Wild v. Wild, 15 Neb. App. 

717, 737 N.W.2d 882 (2007).

The evidence shows Lauren sought removal because she 

wants to live with her new husband, who has lived in Alaska 

for 20 years; who teaches aviation in high school, which is 

not something he can easily teach anywhere else; and who has 

shared custody of his three children in Alaska. We note the 

trial court’s concern about the future stability of this marriage, 

given that Lauren and her new husband have not spent significant time together. Nevertheless, we agree that her motivation 

in seeking removal appears to be sincere and not an effort to 

frustrate or manipulate Jason.

Jason’s motives for resisting the removal are also sincere. 

He opposes removal because it would dramatically affect his 

parenting time and his relationship with Micah. When Jason 

was discharged from the Air Force, he moved to Nebraska to 

be close to Micah. Since his move in September 2014, Jason 

has been spending time with Micah on a regular basis and has 

been working on establishing a good relationship with him. 

There is no indication that his opposition to removal is an 

attempt to frustrate or manipulate Lauren.

Both parties have sincere motives for seeking or opposing 

removal and neither party acted in bad faith. This factor does 

not weigh for or against removal.

(b) Quality of Life

[9] In determining the potential that the removal to another 

jurisdiction holds for enhancing the quality of life of the child 

and the custodial parent, a court should evaluate the following 

considerations: (1) the emotional, physical, and developmental 

needs of the child; (2) the child’s opinion or preference as to 

where to live; (3) the extent to which the relocating parent’s 

income or employment will be enhanced; (4) the degree to 
- 442 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

which housing or living conditions would be improved; (5) 

the existence of educational advantages; (6) the quality of the 

relationship between the child and each parent; (7) the strength 

of the child’s ties to the present community and extended 

family there; (8) the likelihood that allowing or denying the 

removal would antagonize hostilities between the two parties; 

and (9) the living conditions and employment opportunities for 

the custodial parent because the best interests of the child are 

interwoven with the well-being of the custodial parent. See, 

Jack v. Clinton, 259 Neb. 198, 609 N.W.2d 328 (2000); Wild 

v. Wild, supra.

[10] This list should not be misconstrued as setting out a 

hierarchy of considerations, and depending on the circumstances of a particular case, any one consideration or combination of considerations may be variously weighted. Wild v. 

Wild, supra.

(i) Emotional, Physical, and 

Developmental Needs

We first consider the impact on Micah’s emotional, physical, 

and developmental needs in assessing the extent to which the 

move could enhance the child’s life.

The evidence shows that Lauren has always been Micah’s 

primary caregiver and, thus, has been the parent responsible 

for his emotional, physical, and developmental needs. Lauren 

testified that when Micah was an infant, she was the one primarily responsible for his care and he was with her all the time. 

During the marriage, Jason often worked very long hours as a 

result of his military duties. When Lauren and Micah moved 

to Nebraska, Lauren was Micah’s primary parent and was 

responsible for his daily needs. The evidence demonstrates that 

Micah’s emotional, physical, and developmental needs have 

always been met.

Since Jason moved to Nebraska, he and Micah have been 

spending time together regularly and Jason has been taking on 

more responsibility in meeting Micah’s emotional, physical, 

and developmental needs. However, Lauren has a more stable 
- 443 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

and constant presence in Micah’s life and has been the one 

historically responsible for his emotional, physical, and developmental needs. We agree with the trial court that this factor 

weighs somewhat in favor of removal.

(ii) Child’s Opinion or Preference

Micah did not testify and was too young, at the age of 5, 

to state his preference on where to live. This factor does not 

weigh in favor of or against removal.

(iii) Enhancement of Custodial 

Parent’s Income

Lauren claims that the move to Alaska will enhance her 

income. At the time of trial, she was working as an LPN in 

a long-term care facility and earning $18 per hour. She testified that she believed that her current income reflected the 

maximum income she could earn as an LPN in the Omaha, 

Nebraska, area. She testified that she had not applied anywhere 

besides the place she works, because the starting pay at other 

LPN jobs would be lower than what she makes. However, she 

had no corroborating evidence to support her opinions.

Lauren testified that she had been offered a job with the 

school district in Nenana, Alaska. She testified that she was 

offered a position as a school nurse, which the school currently 

does not have. She stated that she would be paid $25 per hour 

and that her work hours would be the same hours as Micah’s 

schoolday. She also testified that she would be working at 

the same school Micah would be attending. Lauren testified 

that the job was an opportunity that she would not have in 

Nebraska, because there are a lot of nurses in Nebraska.

Lauren testified that she had received a written confirmation of the job offer from the Nenana school district. Exhibit 

39 is the purported job offer from the superintendent of the 

school district, which exhibit was admitted into evidence, over 

Jason’s objection.

Jason assigns that the trial court erred in receiving exhibit 

39 into evidence. He objected to the admission of the exhibit 
- 444 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

into evidence based on the grounds of hearsay and foundation. 

Lauren’s counsel stated she was not offering the exhibit for the 

truth of the matter asserted in the exhibit, but for confirmation 

that Lauren received an offer from the Nenana school district. 

The court overruled Jason’s objection and received the exhibit 

for the limited purpose as offered.

Assuming without deciding that the trial court erred in 

admitting exhibit 39 into evidence, it was harmless error 

because the exhibit failed to provide any evidence that Lauren 

has a job in Alaska. The “offer” that was made to Lauren, as 

set forth in exhibit 39, was to do “an assessment of the medical practices and procedures utilized at the Nenana Student 

Living Center and throughout the Nenana City School.” The 

assessment was expected to take 1 month, and during that 

time, Lauren would be paid $25 an hour. Exhibit 39 further 

states that once the assessment is complete, the school district 

would then decide, based on the results, whether it would offer 

Lauren a permanent position to provide nursing services. A 

permanent position would provide “competitive wages”; a fully 

paid medical, dental, and vision plan; and “participation in 

Alaska’s Public Employees Retirement System.”

Therefore, exhibit 39 shows only that the school district will 

allow Lauren to do an assessment to see if there is a need for 

a new position. She had not been offered a permanent position, 

only the possibility of one. Further, even if we could construe 

exhibit 39 as a job offer, there is nothing to indicate that her 

income will be enhanced. She will be paid $25 per hour during the assessment, but in regard to a permanent position, we 

know only that she will be paid “competitive wages.” There is 

no indication as to what that means or any evidence as to what 

LPN’s are paid on average in Alaska. In addition, Lauren failed 

to provide any evidence regarding the cost of living in Nenana 

versus Bellevue. Any potential increase in her earnings could 

be spent on cost-of-living increases. See Wild v. Wild, 13 Neb. 

App. 495, 696 N.W.2d 886 (2005). Finally, we note that Lauren 

also testified that she always wanted to be a stay-at-home 
- 445 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

mother and that she could do that if she wanted by moving to 

Alaska, which contradicts any evidence about an enhancement 

in her income.

We conclude that there is no evidence that Lauren’s income 

will be enhanced by a move to Alaska. Accordingly, this factor 

does not weigh in favor of removal.

(iv) Degree to Which Housing or Living 

Conditions Would Be Improved

At the time of trial, Lauren and Micah were living with 

Lauren’s parents in their home. Prior to making plans to 

move to Alaska, Lauren and Micah lived in a two-bedroom 

apartment. Lauren testified that if she stayed in Nebraska 

with Micah, she would find another two-bedroom apartment 

to live in. Jason also lives in a two-bedroom apartment. If 

removal were allowed, Lauren and Micah would live in a 

three-bedroom house that Collin owns. There was testimony 

that a loft area of the house could be used as an additional 

bedroom. The house is located on a 1-acre lot in a wooded 

area just outside Nenana, which is a small town of about 500 

people. The closest city is Fairbanks, Alaska, which is about 

a 40-minute drive.

We conclude that housing or living conditions would be 

somewhat improved by the move to Alaska. Accordingly, this 

factor weighs in favor of removal.

(v) Existence of Educational Advantages

[11] We next consider whether Alaska offers educational 

advantages. We have held this factor receives little or no 

weight when the custodial parent fails to prove that the new 

schools are superior. Maranville v. Dworak, 17 Neb. App. 245, 

758 N.W.2d 70 (2008).

At the time of trial, Micah was attending school in the 

Bellevue public school system. In Alaska, he would attend 

school in the Nenana public school system. There was no 

evidence presented that one school district would provide educational advantages over the other. Lauren testified that she 
- 446 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

believed both school systems would provide a good education 

and that the education factor was neutral. Therefore, we find 

this factor does not weigh in favor of or against removal.

(vi) Quality of Relationship Between 

Child and Each Parent

The evidence showed that Micah has a good and loving 

relationship with both parents. There was no real bond established between Jason and Micah when Micah was a baby, 

because Jason often worked long hours and Lauren and Micah 

moved to Nebraska when Micah was less than a year old. The 

relationship between Jason and Micah has gotten stronger 

since Jason’s move to Nebraska. They have grown closer 

since then, and they spend time with each other on a regular 

basis. As the trial court noted, Jason has made a sincere effort 

to build a strong relationship with Micah since he moved to 

Nebraska. Lauren testified that Micah has a lot of fun with 

Jason and that they do activities and go places when they are 

together. She was concerned, however, that Jason does not 

discipline Micah and that they are more “buddies” than father 

and son.

Lauren has been Micah’s primary caregiver all of his life, 

and they have a strong bond. As the court noted, if Micah had 

to be separated from one or the other parent, he would more 

easily adapt to not seeing Jason on a frequent basis, given his 

close bond to Lauren.

Although the evidence shows that Jason has a good relationship with Micah, the relationship between Lauren and 

Micah is stronger and well-established. Therefore, we conclude that Micah’s strong bond with Lauren weighs in favor 

of removal.

(vii) Strength of Child’s Ties to Present 

Community and Extended Family

Micah was only 5 years old at the time of trial, so he does 

not have any strong ties to the Bellevue community. He does, 

however, have strong ties to Lauren’s extended family who 
- 447 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

live in the Bellevue area. Lauren’s parents and several of 

her siblings live in Bellevue. Lauren and Micah lived with 

Lauren’s parents when they first moved to Nebraska and lived 

with them again after Lauren planned to move to Alaska. 

Lauren’s parents have also been Micah’s childcare providers 

when Lauren is working.

Lauren’s father, however, testified that he and his wife may 

move out of Nebraska at some point because he would like to 

pursue other career opportunities. Lauren’s father was in the 

Air Force and was stationed in Nebraska in 2006. He retired 

in 2009 and has stayed in Nebraska since then, working at the 

Air Force base as a civilian employee. He testified that he and 

his wife would consider moving out of Nebraska for a career 

opportunity, but not until after his daughter finished her cosmetology school education in the next 18 months. He had previously turned down job offers outside of Nebraska because the 

timing was not right. He testified that if he and his wife moved, 

he did not know whether his two adult children that live in 

Bellevue would also move or remain in Nebraska.

Jason has no ties to Nebraska and no family in the state. 

Neither Jason nor Lauren have any family in Alaska. We conclude that this factor does not weigh in favor of or against 

removal.

(viii) Likelihood That Allowing or 

Denying Move Would Antagonize 

Hostilities Between Parties

The evidence shows that there is hostility between the parties, primarily as a result of Lauren’s desire to move to Alaska. 

Prior to Lauren’s remarriage and desire to move, the parties 

were able to communicate with each other about Micah. There 

has been some contentious communication between the parties 

in the past, primarily caused by Jason.

Any decision in this situation has the potential to antagonize 

the hostilities between the parties, at least for a period of time. 

Lauren could be hostile toward Jason if she is not allowed to 

move to Alaska with her new husband and the father of the 
- 448 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

child she is pregnant with. Likewise, Jason may be hostile if 

Lauren is allowed to take Micah to Alaska, after he moved 

from California to Nebraska to be near Micah. Therefore, this 

factor does not weigh in favor of or against removal.

(ix) Living Conditions and Employment 

Opportunities of Custodial Parent

This factor is repetitive of other facts already discussed. We 

concluded that the living conditions in Alaska would somewhat 

improve and that Lauren’s income or employment opportunities would not necessarily improve. We give no weight to this 

factor as it is incorporated into other factors.

(x) Conclusion Regarding 

Quality of Life

After considering all of the quality-of-life factors, we conclude upon our de novo review of the record that Lauren established removal would enhance the quality of life for Micah.

(c) Impact on Noncustodial 

Parent’s Visitation

Relocating to Alaska will undoubtedly have a significant 

impact on Jason’s visitation time. Since moving to Nebraska, 

Jason has been spending time with Micah on a regular basis 

and has become very involved in his life. If Lauren is allowed 

to move to Alaska with Micah, given the distance involved, 

Jason will no longer see Micah on a regular basis and is mostly 

likely to see him only a few times per year. The new parenting plan provides for Jason to have Micah in Nebraska for 7 

weeks during the summer vacation and approximately 1 week 

during the Christmas vacation, with transportation paid for by 

Lauren. Jason also has the option to exercise parenting time 

during spring break, at his cost, and to have three 1-week visits 

in Alaska. The majority of Jason’s contact with Micah would 

be by telephone or Skype, which cannot replace the frequent, 

in-person contact he currently has and would continue to have 

if Micah were to remain in Nebraska.
- 449 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

[12,13] Nebraska courts have recognized that a noncustodial parent’s visitation rights are important, but a reduction in 

visitation time does not necessarily preclude a custodial parent 

from relocating for a legitimate reason. Dragon v. Dragon, 21 

Neb. App. 228, 838 N.W.2d 56 (2013), citing Hicks v. Hicks, 

223 Neb. 189, 388 N.W.2d 510 (1986). Rather, we focus on 

the ability of the noncustodial parent to maintain a meaningful parent-child relationship. Dragon v. Dragon, supra, citing Maranville v. Dworak, 17 Neb. App. 245, 758 N.W.2d 70 

(2008). A meaningful relationship would be difficult, if not 

impossible, if Lauren moves to Alaska.

This factor weighs against removal because the move will 

dramatically reduce the amount of in-person contact Jason has 

with Micah and it would be difficult to maintain a meaningful relationship.

(d) Conclusion on Best Interests

A de novo review of the evidence shows that the parents 

were not motivated by an effort to frustrate the relationship 

of their child with the other parent and that the move would 

enhance Micah’s quality of life. Although the move would 

greatly impact the relationship between Jason and Micah, the 

record overall demonstrates that it is in Micah’s best interests 

to move with Lauren from Nebraska to Alaska.

(e) Conclusion on Removal

Based on the totality of the record, we conclude that the 

trial court did not err in finding that Lauren has a legitimate 

reason for leaving the state and that it is in Micah’s best interests to continue living with Lauren. Accordingly, we affirm the 

court’s order granting Lauren permission to move with Micah 

to Alaska.

3. Legal Custody

Finally, Jason assigns that the trial court “erred in finding that the parties shall share joint legal custody of Micah 

effective January 1, 2018.” Brief for appellant at 28. Jason 
- 450 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

contends that the court ordered that Lauren would have sole 

legal custody until January 1, 2018, at which time he and 

Lauren would have joint legal custody of Micah as originally 

set forth in the decree. He argues there was no reason for such 

an order.

The court found that communication between the parties 

had become strained and that joint decisionmaking had become 

more difficult, but was likely to improve in the future. As a 

result, it held:

[T]he Court finds that the parties shall continue to have 

joint legal custody of their minor child. However, due 

to the current level of animosity and difficulty of communication, the Court finds that final decision-making 

authority on all major decisions involving the minor 

child shall be granted to [Lauren] through December 31, 

2017. Effective January 1, 2018, the parties shall resume 

joint legal custody as outlined in the decree of dissolution. During the interim period, [Lauren] shall discuss 

all major decisions regarding the child’s well being with 

[Jason] and seek to reach consensus with [him] regarding 

said decisions. She shall only exert her final decisionmaking authority in the event that a complete impasse 

exists between the parties. No major decision shall be 

made without consultation with [Jason].

We conclude that the court did not temporarily change joint 

legal custody, as Jason contends. Rather, the court ordered 

that the parties would continue to have joint legal custody of 

Micah, but it gave Lauren temporary final decisionmaking 

authority on all major decisions until December 31, 2017. We 

find no merit to Jason’s final assignment of error and further 

conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving Lauren temporary final decisionmaking authority.

VI. CONCLUSION

We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion 

in determining that Lauren’s marriage to Collin constituted a 

legitimate reason to leave the state and that it was in Micah’s 
- 451 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

best interests to continue living with Lauren in Alaska. We 

further conclude that the district court did not err in giving Lauren final decisionmaking authority until December 31, 

2017. Accordingly, the district court’s opinion and order of 

modification is affirmed in its entirety.

Affirmed.

Moore, Chief Judge, concurring.

I write separately to express my discomfort with the district court’s grant of Lauren’s application to remove Micah 

from Nebraska. While I have no complaint with the finding 

that Lauren established a legitimate reason to move from 

Nebraska, I am troubled by the finding that the move would 

be in Micah’s best interests. The facts that, in my mind, weigh 

against granting the removal are as follows: (1) Jason’s move 

from California to Nebraska to be close to Micah; (2) the 

significant distance between Nebraska and Alaska, with the 

corresponding travel limitations; and (3) the relatively weak 

evidence that Micah’s quality of life would be enhanced in 

Alaska. The strongest argument against removal, though, is 

the negative impact that the move will have on the relationship between Jason and Micah, a relationship that has grown 

substantially stronger since Jason moved to Nebraska. The 

parenting plan, while granting Jason visitation in Nebraska 

during part of the Christmas and summer vacations, does not 

adequately substitute for the more regular interaction that 

Jason and Micah have grown accustomed to in Nebraska. In 

addition, at the time of trial, Micah had not had an opportunity to establish a meaningful relationship with his stepfather, 

Collin; they had only met on one occasion before the marriage 

and only two or three times before the trial. Thus, Micah is 

moving far away from his stable home in Nebraska, where 

his father, grandparents, and aunts and uncles reside, to a 

home in Alaska where he is largely unfamiliar with his new 

blended family.

Nevertheless, I ultimately agree that our standard of review 

in custody and removal cases dictates that we affirm the trial 
- 452 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

24 Nebraska Appellate Reports

BOYER v. BOYER

Cite as 24 Neb. App. 434

court’s decision in this case. The Nebraska Supreme Court 

has recognized:

In parental relocation cases, trial and appellate courts 

deal with the tension created by a mobile society and the 

problems associated with uprooting children from stable 

environments. Courts are required to balance the noncustodial parent’s desire to maintain their current involvement in the child’s life with the custodial parent’s chance 

to embark on a new or better life. These issues are among 

the most difficult issues that courts face in postdivorce 

proceedings. It is for this reason that such determinations are matters initially entrusted to the discretion of 

the trial judge, and the trial judge’s determination is to be 

given deference.

Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529, 537, 843 N.W.2d 655, 662-63 

(2014). See, also, Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98, 858 N.W.2d 

865 (2015).

After giving appropriate deference to the discretion of the 

trial judge, who observed the demeanor of the witnesses, I am 

unable to find that the decision was so untenable as to rise 

to the level of an abuse of that discretion. Thus, I join in the 

majority’s opinion affirming the trial court’s decision.