- 953 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

Tyler J. Janda, appellee, v.

Stephanie R. Janda, now known as 

Stephanie R. Danley, appellant.

___ N.W.3d ___

Filed June 4, 2024. No. A-23-549.

1. Child Custody: Appeal and Error. Child custody 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. Modification of Decree: Child Custody: Proof. Ordinarily, custody 

of a minor child will not be modified unless there has been a material 

change in circumstances showing either that the custodial parent is unfit 

or that the best interests of the child require such action.

3. ____: ____: ____. The showing required to modify custody is a twostep process: First, the party seeking modification must show a material 

change in circumstances, occurring after the entry of the previous custody order and affecting the best interests of the child. Next, the party 

seeking modification must prove that changing the child’s custody is in 

the child’s best interests.

4. ____: ____: ____. Proof of a material change in circumstances is the 

threshold inquiry in a proceeding on a complaint to modify, because 

issues determined in the prior custody order are deemed preclusive in 

the absence of proof of new facts and circumstances.

5. Modification of Decree: Words and Phrases. Generally, a material 

change in circumstances is the occurrence of something which, had it 

been known to the dissolution court at the time of the initial decree or 

prior modification, would have persuaded the court to decree differently.

6. Modification of Decree: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Where the 

party seeking modification advances multiple reasons for modification, 

an appellate court does not consider whether each individual factor 

standing alone constitutes a material change; the appellate court instead 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

07/10/2024 06:09 PM CDT
- 954 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

considers all the facts and circumstances raised by the evidence to determine whether there has been a material change.

7. Modification of Decree: Child Custody: Proof. The party seeking 

modification of a dissolution decree has the burden to produce sufficient 

proof that a material change of circumstances has occurred that warrants 

a modification.

8. Modification of Decree: Child Custody. Removal of a child from the 

state, without more, does not amount to a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody. Nevertheless, such a move when considered 

in conjunction with other evidence may result in a change of circumstances that would warrant a modification of the decree.

9. Child Custody. In considering a motion to remove a minor child to 

another jurisdiction, the paramount consideration is whether the proposed move is in the best interests of the child.

10. ____. When determining the best interests of the child in the context 

of custody, a court must consider, at a minimum, (1) the relationship of 

the minor child to each parent prior to the commencement of the action; 

(2) the desires and wishes of a sufficiently mature child, if based on 

sound reasoning; (3) the general health, welfare, and social behavior 

of the child; (4) credible evidence of abuse inflicted on any family or 

household member; and (5) credible evidence of child abuse or neglect 

or domestic intimate partner abuse.

11. ____. Other relevant considerations include stability in the child’s routine; minimalization of contact and conflict between the parents; the 

general nature and health of the individual child; the moral fitness of 

the child’s parents, including sexual conduct; respective environments 

offered by each parent; the age, sex, and health of the child and parents; 

the effect on the child as a result of continuing or disrupting an existing 

relationship; the attitude and stability of each parent’s character; and 

parental capacity to provide physical care and satisfy educational needs 

of the child.

12. ____. No single factor is determinative, and different factors may weigh 

more heavily in the court’s analysis, depending on the evidence presented in each case. The one constant is that the child’s best interests are 

always the standard by which any custody or parenting time determination is made.

13. Modification of Decree: Child Custody. While the district court is not 

necessarily obligated to provide a detailed analysis in a modification 

of custody case, it is the best practice for a district court to provide 

some detailed analysis in determining what is in the best interests of 

the children.
- 955 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

14. Evidence: Appeal and Error. When a finding is not expressly made by 

a trial court, an appellate court, in its de novo review, may make such a 

finding if the evidence supports it.

15. Evidence: Witnesses: Appeal and Error. When the district court does 

not provide an analysis, an appellate court can make little application 

of its general rule that in its de novo review, an appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial court saw and heard 

the witnesses.

16. Child Custody. The decisions of where a child will reside and attend 

school are fundamental decisions that require mutual agreement between 

parents who maintain joint legal custody.

17. Child Custody: Intent. A parent’s intentional refusal to promote and 

facilitate the other parent’s involvement in a child’s important educational, religious, and medical needs constitutes a significant factor to 

consider when making custody decisions.

18. Child Custody. Although not a completely determinative factor, the 

promotion and facilitation of a relationship by one parent with the other 

parent is a factor that may be considered when awarding custody.

Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Lori 

A. Maret, Judge. Affirmed.

Eddy M. Rodell for appellant.

Sean M. Reagan, of Reagan Law Offices, P.C., L.L.O., for 

appellee.

Pirtle, Chief Judge, and Riedmann and Welch, Judges.

Pirtle, Chief Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Tyler J. Janda and Stephanie R. Janda, now known as 

Stephanie R. Danley, are a divorced couple with four shared 

children. Their initial parenting plan gave Stephanie primary 

custody of the children, subject to Tyler’s reasonable parenting time. However, after Stephanie sought a modification of 

the parenting plan due to their constant disagreements, Tyler 

requested that he be given primary custody of the children. 

After a trial, the district court for Lancaster County modified 

their custody arrangement and gave Tyler physical and legal 
- 956 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

custody of the children, subject to Stephanie’s reasonable parenting time. Stephanie now appeals that decision. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the district court.

BACKGROUND

Tyler and Stephanie were married on January 1, 2013. 

During their marriage, they had four children: B.J., S.J., R.J., 

and H.J. At the time of trial, B.J. was 10 years old, S.J. was 7 

years old, and R.J. and H.J. were both 5 years old. On January 

22, 2021, as part of their divorce proceedings, Tyler and 

Stephanie entered into a settlement agreement that included 

as an attachment the parties’ parenting plan concerning the 

visitation and custody of their children. Pursuant to their parenting plan, Tyler and Stephanie maintained joint legal custody of the four children and Stephanie was granted primary 

physical custody.

On March 1, 2021, Tyler and Stephanie’s divorce was finalized, and the parties maintained the same custody arrangement. At that time, both parties lived in Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Pursuant to the arrangement, the parties had a “nine-five” 

schedule where Stephanie had the children for 9 days and then 

Tyler had them for 5 days. The plan provided that Tyler was 

responsible for picking up the children from their school or 

Stephanie’s home when his parenting time started and dropping them off when it concluded. The parenting plan required 

Stephanie to provide medical insurance for the children and 

mandated that both parties inform one another when they 

planned to change the residence of the children for more than 

30 days.

On October 8, 2021, Stephanie filed a complaint for modification that alleged she and Tyler were having problems 

communicating with one another. Due to this, she sought an 

order that directed the parties to communicate solely via an 

application for parents (parenting app). Additionally, Stephanie 

sought to merge the divorce action with a separate case dealing 

with Tyler’s payment of child support and requested the court 

reevaluate the amount of child support he owed.
- 957 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

On November 3, 2021, in response to Stephanie’s complaint for modification, Tyler filed an answer and countercomplaint wherein he sought sole physical and legal custody 

of the children. During the pendency of the proceedings, the 

district court entered several temporary orders. These orders 

included an April 22, 2022, order regarding child support; a 

January 6, 2023, order appointing a guardian ad litem (GAL) 

for the four children; and a March 10 order concerning the 

children’s schooling.

On December 15, 2022, while the modification proceeding was pending, Stephanie moved from Lincoln to Fairbury, 

Nebraska. Due to the move, the two school-aged children 

switched schools and started attending school in Fairbury. 

Tyler took issue with the move, alleging that it impacted his 

visitation schedule because it added an approximate hourlong commute both ways for him to pick up and drop off 

the children.

Trial

On March 23, 2023, a trial was held on the parties’ competing complaints for modification. Several witnesses testified 

during the trial, including Tyler and Stephanie.

Stephanie testified that she moved to Fairbury because her 

landlord increased her rent and she and the children needed 

more room. She stated that she put in an offer on a house in 

Fairbury in October 2022, it was accepted on November 1, and 

she closed on the home on December 15. However, it was only 

after she closed on the home that she informed Tyler she was 

moving to Fairbury.

Although Stephanie looked at several houses in the Lincoln 

area, she stated that she purchased the home in Fairbury 

because of its size and number of bedrooms and because the 

purchase price was on the lower end of her budget. Stephanie 

testified that when she purchased the house in December 2022, 

she did not believe it would impact Tyler’s parenting time 

because she was still planning to work in Lincoln. However, 
- 958 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

contrary to that claim, she stated that she had started applying 

for remote positions as early as October. Then on December 

20, citing the prohibitive cost of daycare, she quit her job 

in Lincoln and soon began a new job that allowed her to 

work from home. She explained that this new job’s flexible 

schedule would allow her to watch her two youngest children 

throughout the day while she worked. After taking this job, 

she enrolled the two school-aged children in Fairbury schools 

in early January 2023. However, there was no indication she 

discussed this change with Tyler before doing so.

Stephanie also discussed the ongoing issue of her and Tyler 

not being able to communicate without arguing. She described 

that they had been unable to compromise on transportation, 

how to make up for lost parenting time, and how to accommodate Tyler’s work schedule. She explained that although 

they were temporarily ordered to use a parenting app for 

communication, Tyler never set up his account. As such, they 

were communicating primarily through text messages. She 

described these communications as “combative” and believed 

that using a parenting app that logged their communications 

would help her and Tyler act more appropriately. Stephanie 

also testified to her belief that Tyler’s wife was the one 

responding to many of her text messages.

Tyler testified that as a result of Stephanie’s move to 

Fairbury, he was unable to parent the children on a “nine-five” 

basis because his work hours made it difficult for him to pick 

up and drop off the children in Fairbury. He stated that due 

to the move, he consistently missed out on 2 of his allotted 

5 days of custody. Additionally, he claimed his inability to 

engage in full visitation had negatively affected the children 

and his relationship with them.

Tyler also mentioned that he had concerns about domestic 

violence in Stephanie’s home. He stated that Stephanie had 

previously posted on social media about her boyfriend “putting 

his hands on her.” He also stated that this boyfriend still stayed 

at Stephanie’s home “from time to time.”
- 959 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

Additionally, Tyler testified about his concerns regarding 

the creation by Stephanie of an “OnlyFans” account where she 

posted explicit sexual content. Stephanie started an OnlyFans 

account sometime around the end of 2021 but claimed to have 

only posted from the account between August and September 

2022. During that period, she posted approximately five nude 

pictures of herself and one video of her masturbating. Notably, 

in an affidavit Stephanie submitted to the district court in 

2022, she denied the existence of this account. Specifically, 

in response to Tyler claiming she had the OnlyFans account, 

she stated, “This is not true,” and “I don’t know why [Tyler] 

would make this claim.”

The ex-husband of Tyler’s wife also testified at trial. The 

ex-husband and Tyler’s wife share a daughter. The ex-husband 

discussed his recent request to modify the daughter’s custody 

due to her claims that Tyler physically abused her. While the 

ex-husband was unable to go into detail about the accusations, he stated they were serious enough for him to request 

the custody modification. However, he explained that he never 

reported these allegations to law enforcement, Child Protective 

Services, or any other authority.

A woman who interacts with Tyler regularly also testified at 

trial. She stated that she is married to Tyler’s cousin and that 

she had known Tyler for around 4 years, attending approximately 50 events where he was present. Her testimony was 

short, but she testified that Tyler was “an incredible father” 

and provided anecdotes about Tyler’s positive interactions with 

his children.

The GAL’s report was also entered into evidence. In her 

report, the GAL stated it was clear the parties were having trouble communicating and the children were affected 

by the move to Fairbury. As a result of the move, the GAL 

reported the children saw Tyler less and were sad about the 

lack of time they were spending with him. She stated that 

when she discussed this issue with Stephanie, it was clear 

that Stephanie questioned the benefit of Tyler’s having a 
- 960 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

relationship with the children. Stephanie’s concerns seemed to 

stem from Tyler’s previous abandonment of the children and 

her belief that he would abandon them again. The GAL concluded that it was in the children’s best interests to have more 

equal time with their parents and advised the court to fashion 

a plan that maximized time with each parent.

District Court’s Order

On June 30, 2023, the district court issued an order that 

modified the custody arrangement by granting Tyler the physical and legal custody of the children, subject to Stephanie’s 

reasonable parenting time. In its order, the court stated:

[T]he Court finds that a material change in circumstances 

exists in that the custody of the minor children should 

be modified. The Court notes that [Stephanie] has made 

a unilateral decision to move the children to a location 

which seriously affected [Tyler’s] parenting time with the 

children, and this change has proven to not be in the best 

interests of the children.

Additionally, the district court ordered all communications 

regarding the minor children to be between Tyler and Stephanie 

only and via the “Talking Parents” parenting app. Further, the 

court ordered Stephanie to pay $753 per month in child support that would be lowered once each child reached the age 

of majority.

Stephanie now appeals the district court’s order.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Stephanie assigns, restated, the district court erred in granting Tyler physical and legal custody of the children.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Child custody 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. Burton 

v. Schlegel, 29 Neb. App. 393, 954 N.W.2d 645 (2021).
- 961 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

ANALYSIS

[2,3] Stephanie asserts the district court erred in finding 

that there was a material change in circumstances and, therefore, erred in modifying the custody arrangement. Ordinarily, 

custody of a minor child will not be modified unless there 

has been a material change in circumstances showing either 

that the custodial parent is unfit or that the best interests of 

the child require such action. Scott v. Dorrance, 32 Neb. App. 

213, 995 N.W.2d 226 (2023). The Nebraska Supreme Court 

has described this showing as a two-step process: First, the 

party seeking modification must show a material change in 

circumstances, occurring after the entry of the previous custody order and affecting the best interests of the child. Id.

Next, the party seeking modification must prove that changing 

the child’s custody is in the child’s best interests. Id.

Here, neither parent claimed the other was unfit. 

Consequently, we focus our review on whether Tyler demonstrated a material change in circumstances that affected the 

children’s best interests and whether Tyler proved that being 

granted physical and legal custody was in their best interests.

Material Change in Circumstances

[4-7] Proof of a material change in circumstances is the 

threshold inquiry in a proceeding on a complaint to modify, because issues determined in the prior custody order 

are deemed preclusive in the absence of proof of new facts 

and circumstances. Lindblad v. Lindblad, 309 Neb. 776, 962 

N.W.2d 545 (2021). Generally, a material change in circumstances is the occurrence of something which, had it been 

known to the dissolution court at the time of the initial decree 

or prior modification, would have persuaded the court to 

decree differently. Id. Where the party seeking modification 

advances multiple reasons for modification, we do not consider 

whether each individual factor standing alone constitutes a 

material change; we instead consider all the facts and circumstances raised by the evidence to determine whether there has 
- 962 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

been a material change. Weaver v. Weaver, 308 Neb. 373, 954 

N.W.2d 619 (2021). The party seeking modification of a dissolution decree has the burden to produce sufficient proof that 

a material change of circumstances has occurred that warrants 

a modification. Keiser v. Keiser, 310 Neb. 345, 965 N.W.2d 

786 (2021).

In its order, the district court found a material change in 

circumstances warranting a modification. While the district 

court did not provide any analysis as to this change, it noted 

that Stephanie had made a unilateral decision to move the 

children to a location that “seriously affected” Tyler’s parenting time.

[8,9] Stephanie essentially argues the district court erroneously found that her move to Fairbury constituted a material 

change in circumstances. She cites Vogel v. Vogel, 262 Neb. 

1030, 637 N.W.2d 611 (2002), where the Supreme Court 

considered a case in which a father sought a modification 

of custody. In that case, the father’s argument alleged solely 

that the mother’s anticipated move to Virginia was a change 

in circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification. The 

court, in affirming the denial of the father’s modification 

request, stated:

[R]emoval of a child from the state, without more, does 

not amount to a change of circumstances warranting a 

change of custody. . . . Nevertheless, such a move when 

considered in conjunction with other evidence may result 

in a change of circumstances that would warrant a modification of the decree. . . . In considering a motion to 

remove a minor child to another jurisdiction, the paramount consideration is whether the proposed move is in 

the best interests of the child.

Id. at 1041, 637 N.W.2d at 621. Citing to this passage, Stephanie 

argues that because the district court’s order mentioned only 

her move to Fairbury as justification for finding a material 

change in circumstances, it erred as a matter of law.
- 963 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

Tyler acknowledges that although Stephanie’s move to 

Fairbury, standing alone, may not constitute a material change 

in circumstances, evidence presented at trial demonstrated 

that Stephanie engaged in other behaviors that warranted 

the finding. He asserts that Stephanie moved before providing the requisite notice to him, removed the two school-aged 

children from their Lincoln school without notifying him, 

created OnlyFans content in the children’s home, refused to 

coparent with him, blamed him for not being able to make 

the parenting schedule work following her move, and refused 

to comply with the existing parenting plan. When accounting 

for all these actions and inactions, Tyler asserts the circumstances were materially changed beyond Stephanie’s move 

to Fairbury.

Based on our de novo review of the record, we cannot 

say the district court abused its discretion in finding that a 

material change in circumstances occurred. We believe that if 

the district court had been aware of Tyler’s and Stephanie’s 

issues with amicable communication in conjunction with 

Stephanie’s move to Fairbury at the time of its initial decree, 

the district court would have proceeded differently. See 

Weaver v. Weaver, 308 Neb. 373, 954 N.W.2d 619 (2021) 

(finding that obstacles to father’s visitation with child was 

circumstance that warranted modification).

At trial, both parties discussed their issues communicating 

with one another. Stephanie described their combative text 

messages as the reason she wanted the court to order them to 

communicate via a parenting app. She also spoke about her 

belief that Tyler’s wife was the one responding to her text 

messages. Tyler then testified that he turned down Stephanie’s 

attempts to sit down and discuss their problems “[b]ecause 

every conversation [was] very high conflict, and it never 

[came] out in any kind of resolution.”

Tyler also discussed how their communication issues 

impacted his ability to get copies of the children’s insurance 

cards from Stephanie. When he asked for the documents, 
- 964 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

Stephanie sent him a picture of a “sticky note” that contained 

condescending and insulting language. Additionally, evidence 

was put forward showing that Tyler and Stephanie had issues 

updating one another on when the children were going to 

attend their summer daycare or instead stay home. And further 

evidence was adduced in the form of text messages that illustrated their inability to compromise given Stephanie’s move 

to Fairbury.

In addition to their communication problems, Stephanie’s 

move created an obstacle to Tyler’s utilizing his parenting 

time. While Tyler and Stephanie do not agree on the exact 

amount of time it takes to get to Fairbury from Lincoln, they 

both agree it is more than an hour. Therefore, with Tyler’s 

being responsible for transporting the children to and from 

his home, he must account for several additional hours of 

travel, which consequently interferes with his work schedule. 

While Tyler testified that his wife has more flexibility to 

drive the farther distance to pick up the children, he asserted 

the additional travel time reduces the amount of time he 

spends with his two oldest children by nearly half.

Additionally, the GAL’s report corroborated the difficulties 

Tyler and Stephanie had in communicating and the obstacles 

presented by Stephanie’s move to Fairbury.

Based on this record, we determine the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in finding a material change in 

circumstances.

Best Interests

[10-12] When determining the best interests of the child in 

the context of custody, a court must consider, at a minimum, 

(1) the relationship of the minor child to each parent prior to 

the commencement of the action; (2) the desires and wishes 

of a sufficiently mature child, if based on sound reasoning; 

(3) the general health, welfare, and social behavior of the 

child; (4) credible evidence of abuse inflicted on any family or household member; and (5) credible evidence of child 
- 965 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

abuse or neglect or domestic intimate partner abuse. Jones v. 

Jones, 305 Neb. 615, 941 N.W.2d 501 (2020). Other relevant 

considerations include stability in the child’s routine; minimalization of contact and conflict between the parents; the general 

nature and health of the individual child; the moral fitness 

of the child’s parents, including sexual conduct; respective 

environments offered by each parent; the age, sex, and health 

of the child and parents; the effect on the child as a result of 

continuing or disrupting an existing relationship; the attitude 

and stability of each parent’s character; and parental capacity to provide physical care and satisfy educational needs of 

the child. See id. See, also, Robb v. Robb, 268 Neb. 694, 687 

N.W.2d 195 (2004). No single factor is determinative, and different factors may weigh more heavily in the court’s analysis, 

depending on the evidence presented in each case. Jones v. 

Jones, supra. The one constant is that the child’s best interests 

are always the standard by which any custody or parenting 

time determination is made. Id.

[13] With these legal standards in mind, we again point 

out that the district court’s order did not provide any analysis 

regarding the children’s best interests other than the intrastate 

move between Lincoln and Fairbury, which is approximately 

“70 ish minutes.” We take this opportunity to discourage this 

practice. While we recognize that the district court is not 

necessarily obligated to provide a detailed analysis in a modification of custody case, it is the best practice for a district 

court to provide some detailed analysis in determining what 

is in the best interests of the children. Few areas of the law 

present more impactful situations than custody arrangements 

for children.

[14,15] While the absence of this analysis is disappointing and unfortunate, it is not dispositive, however, because 

the Supreme Court has recognized that even when a finding 

is not expressly made by a trial court, an appellate court, 

in its de novo review, may make such a finding if the evidence supports it. See id. However, we do note that when the 
- 966 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

district court does not provide an analysis, we can make little 

application of our general rule that in our de novo review, 

we consider, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial 

court saw and heard the witnesses. See Weaver v. Weaver, 

308 Neb. 373, 954 N.W.2d 619 (2021). Despite this, after 

our de novo review of the record in this case, we cannot say 

the district court abused its discretion in finding that Tyler’s 

having physical and legal custody of the children was in their 

best interests.

[16,17] The record clearly demonstrates that Tyler and 

Stephanie have difficulty coparenting. These issues go beyond 

ordinary communication problems and bleed into acts of 

deception. Stephanie did not tell Tyler that she was moving 

more than an hour away from Lincoln until she had already 

closed on the house in Fairbury. Although Stephanie claimed 

she did not anticipate this adversely affecting Tyler’s parenting time because she was still planning to work in Lincoln, 

she had started to apply for remote jobs nearly 2 months prior. 

Then, without consulting Tyler, she removed B.J. and S.J. 

from their school in Lincoln and enrolled them in Fairbury 

schools. The Supreme Court has previously stated that the 

decisions of where a child will reside and attend school are 

fundamental decisions that require mutual agreement between 

parents who maintain joint legal custody. See Vyhlidal v. 

Vyhlidal, 311 Neb. 495, 973 N.W.2d 171 (2022). We have 

also stated that a parent’s intentional refusal to promote and 

facilitate the other parent’s involvement in a child’s important educational, religious, and medical needs constitutes 

a significant factor to consider when making custody decisions. Burton v. Schlegel, 29 Neb. App. 393, 954 N.W.2d 645 

(2021). By waiting to inform Tyler about her move and the 

two school-aged children’s change in schools until the effects 

of her decisions were complete, Stephanie precluded Tyler 

from having any say in the matters. These decisions not only 

adversely affected his parenting time, but they also affected 

the children.
- 967 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

[18] The increased travel time between Lincoln and Fairbury 

conflicted with Tyler’s work schedule and precluded him from 

making full use of his scheduled parenting time. Although not 

a completely determinative factor, the promotion and facilitation of a relationship by one parent with the other parent is 

a factor that may be considered when awarding custody. Id. 

Despite Stephanie’s claim that she had no intention of diminishing Tyler’s parenting time with her move, her unilateral 

actions resulted in precisely that outcome.

More so, Stephanie also testified that the move was “not 

ideal” for the children because they were “very used to” the 

prior custody arrangement. The GAL report expanded on this 

sentiment by indicating that the children had “clearly been 

affected” by the move because they were sad about spending 

less time with Tyler. Further, the GAL reported that the move 

“seem[ed] to have put stress on the two older children since 

they [were] not able to see [Tyler] as much as they previously had.” Stephanie was seemingly unconcerned about these 

effects because the report also indicated that she questioned 

the benefits the children received from having a relationship 

with Tyler. Based on this information, it is not apparent that 

Stephanie was acting in the best interests of the children by 

moving to Fairbury, changing their schools, and doing so without informing Tyler beforehand.

Additionally, the record displayed other concerning behaviors by Stephanie that support the district court’s decision 

that the change in custody was in the children’s best interests. 

Tyler testified about Stephanie’s social media post wherein 

she discussed her boyfriend “putting his hands on her.” Tyler 

stated this boyfriend still stayed with Stephanie from time to 

time, which the children corroborated when speaking with 

the GAL. They told the GAL that the boyfriend resided in 

Stephanie’s home “‘most of the time’” when he was not 

“‘out in the truck.’” Also concerning is Stephanie’s explicit 

sexual posts on her OnlyFans account and her subsequent 
- 968 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

32 Nebraska Appellate Reports

JANDA V. JANDA

Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953

inconsistent testimony about when she had an account, the 

quantity of her posts, and when she posted the content from 

the account.

Given Stephanie’s failure to notify Tyler about her move 

until after she already closed on her house, her unilateral decision to change the two school-aged children’s school in the 

middle of the school year, her posting explicit sexual content 

on her OnlyFans account, her denial in her affidavit that she 

did not have such an account, the alleged domestic violence in 

her home, and the adverse effects the move had on the children, we are unable to find the district court abused its discretion in finding that Tyler’s having physical and legal custody 

of the children was in their best interests.

CONCLUSION

We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion 

in awarding Tyler physical and legal custody of the children. 

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.

Affirmed.