Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

STEFFY v. STEFFY 757

Cite as 20 Neb. App. 757

Brian David Steffy, appellant, v. 

Randi Jo Steffy, now known as

Randi Jo Stenson, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed May 14, 2013. No. A-12-082.

1. Appeal and Error. An appellate court may, at its option, notice plain error.

2. Child Custody: Visitation: Appeal and Error. Child custody determinations, 

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.

3. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion requires that the reasons or rulings of a trial judge be clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant 

of a substantial right and a just result.

4. Rules of the Supreme Court: Appeal and Error. Parties who wish to secure 

appellate review of their claims for relief must be aware of, and abide by, the 

rules of the Nebraska Supreme Court and the Nebraska Court of Appeals in presenting such claims.

5. ____: ____. Any party who fails to properly identify and present its claim in 

accordance with the Supreme Court rules does so at its peril and risks the appellate court’s declining to address the claim.

6. Appeal and Error. To be considered by an appellate court, an alleged error must 

be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in the brief of the party 

asserting the error.

7. Rules of the Supreme Court: Appeal and Error. Assignments of error consisting of headings or subparts of argument do not comply with the mandate of Neb. 

Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(1)(e) (rev. 2008).

8. ____: ____. In situations where assignments of error do not comply with the 

mandate of Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(1)(e) (rev. 2008), the court may consider the case as one in which no brief was filed, or, alternatively, the court may 

examine the proceedings for plain error.

9. Appeal and Error. Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of 

such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, 

reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.

10. 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.

11. ____. The threshold question in removal cases is whether the parent wishing to 

remove the child from the state has a legitimate reason for leaving.

12. ____. Legitimate employment opportunities for a custodial parent may constitute 

a legitimate reason for leaving the state.

13. ____. Legitimate employment opportunities for a custodial parent may constitute 

a legitimate reason for leaving the state when there is a reasonable expectation of 

improvement in the career or occupation of the custodial parent.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

758 20 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

14. ____. After clearing the threshold of showing a legitimate reason for leaving 

the state, the custodial parent must next demonstrate that it is in the child’s best 

interests to continue living with him or her.

15. ____. In considering a motion to remove a minor child to another jurisdiction, 

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

16. Child Custody: Visitation. In determining whether removal to another jurisdiction is in a child’s best interests, the court considers (1) each parent’s motives for 

seeking or opposing the move; (2) the potential that 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.

17. 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 a removal in an effort to frustrate or manipulate the other party.

18. ____. The second factor that must be considered regarding a motion to remove 

a child to another jurisdiction is the potential that the move holds for enhancing 

the quality of life for the child and the custodial parent. This factor requires an 

analysis of other considerations which bear upon the potential enhancement of 

the child’s quality of life.

19. ____. 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 

evaluates the following considerations: the emotional, physical, and developmental needs of the child; the child’s opinion or preference as to where to live; the 

extent to which the relocating parent’s income or employment will be enhanced; 

the degree to which housing or living conditions would be improved; the existence of educational advantages; the quality of the relationship between the child 

and each parent; the strength of the child’s ties to the present community and 

extended family there; and the likelihood that allowing or denying the removal 

would antagonize hostilities between the two parties. 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.

20. Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not consider an issue that 

was not passed upon by the trial court.

21. Constitutional Law: Appeal and Error. A constitutional issue not presented to 

or passed upon by the trial court is not appropriate for consideration on appeal.

Appeal from the District Court for Cass County: Randall L. 

Rehmeier, Judge. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed.

Karen S. Nelson and Liam K. Meehan, of Schirber & 

Wagner, L.L.P., for appellant.

Steven M. Delaney and Darin L. Whitmer, of Reagan, 

Melton & Delaney, L.L.P., for appellee.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

STEFFY v. STEFFY 759

Cite as 20 Neb. App. 757

Irwin, Pirtle, and Riedmann, Judges.

Pirtle, Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Brian David Steffy appeals a decision reached by the district 

court for Cass County following Brian’s attempt to modify 

the parties’ previous divorce decree. In Brian’s complaint, he 

alleged that a material change of circumstances had occurred 

and sought an increase in child support, and he also sought the 

court’s permission to move with the parties’ minor child from 

Nebraska to Texas. The district court found a material change 

of circumstances had occurred due to a change in the income 

of Randi Jo Steffy, now known as Randi Jo Stenson, and the 

court increased the child support order accordingly. In addition, 

the court concluded that Brian had failed to prove a legitimate 

reason for leaving the state, and it thus denied his request for 

permission to move to Texas. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm in part and in part reverse.

II. BACKGROUND

Brian and Randi moved to Plattsmouth, Nebraska, with their 

son, Jakob Steffy, in 2003. Jakob, born in August 2001, had 

been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. From 2003 

to 2007, Randi was stationed near Omaha, Nebraska, in her 

capacity as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army. In July 2007, 

the Army transferred Randi to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

On April 15, 2008, a decree of dissolution of marriage had 

been entered in this matter. At the time of the divorce, Brian 

and Jakob resided in Plattsmouth and Randi resided in Fort 

Leavenworth. The parties agreed to joint legal custody with 

Brian being the primary custodial parent. Randi had parenting 

time with Jakob every other weekend and for extended periods 

of time over the summer.

In August 2010, Randi was promoted to colonel and was 

transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky. After being restationed, 

Randi continued to exercise parenting time with Jakob once 

a month and for extended periods over the summer. The parties exchanged Jakob in Rock Port, Missouri, and Randi took 

Jakob to her sister’s home in Platte City, Missouri, during her 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

760 20 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

parenting time. Randi made sure that Jakob was involved in 

educational activities and “applied behavioral analysis” (ABA) 

therapy during the summer visitation periods.

In December 2010, Brian filed a complaint for modification 

seeking permanent removal of Jakob from Nebraska and seeking sole legal and physical custody subject to Randi’s parenting 

time. Brian also alleged a material change of circumstances 

because Randi earned a promotion and a change of income, 

which necessitated a change in the child support order.

Brian met his current wife, Sheri Steffy, during December 

2010, and they married in April 2011. Brian and Sheri reside 

in Plattsmouth with Jakob and Sheri’s children from a previous marriage. Brian graduated with a degree in elementary 

education in May 2011. At the time of trial, he was a substitute 

teacher in Bellevue, Nebraska, where he was paid between 

$125 and $140 per day. Brian also received $1,800 per month 

from a military pension and, at the time of trial, received 

approximately $1,146 per month in child support from Randi. 

Sheri was under an employment contract with the Bellevue 

school system, where she earned approximately $54,000 per 

year as a teacher.

At trial, Brian testified that a teacher with his experience in 

the greater Omaha area would earn an annual salary between 

$30,000 and $31,000. Brian obtained salary information for 

a number of school districts near Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas. 

A teacher with the same credentials in the Dallas-Fort Worth 

metropolitan area could earn a salary ranging from $47,000 to 

$50,000. Brian stated that he would like to move to a school 

district offering higher pay and was attracted to Texas because 

it does not have a state income tax.

Brian testified he would also like to live in Texas because 

it would be closer to some of his extended family, including his mother, his brothers, his sister-in-law, a nephew, and 

some stepsiblings, all of whom live within the state. Brian 

said he considered how the move would affect Randi, and 

he determined the trip from Dallas-Fort Worth to Louisville, 

Kentucky, is equal to the distance from Louisville to Omaha. 

Brian stated he would be willing to accommodate monthly visitation by meeting Randi halfway between Dallas-Fort Worth 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

STEFFY v. STEFFY 761

Cite as 20 Neb. App. 757

and Louisville, or Dallas-Fort Worth and either Kansas City, 

Missouri, or Kansas City, Kansas. This distance is approximately the same as their arrangement to meet between 

Louisville and Plattsmouth.

Keery Wolf, of Wolf Behavioral Consulting, testified that 

Jakob has restricted interests, stereotypic or repetitive behaviors (such as putting things in a specific place or hitting his 

leg over and over), lack of verbal communication, and social 

skills deficits. Wolf is one of Jakob’s therapists and is a certified behavior analyst in ABA. ABA is the science of behavior 

change; either increasing appropriate behaviors, decreasing 

inappropriate behaviors, or both.

Wolf said that ABA therapists are at Jakob’s school to 

work one-on-one with Jakob and that paraprofessionals from 

the school also learned what the ABA therapists do so the 

techniques could be used with Jakob during the rest of the 

day. Wolf spent at least 1 hour per week or 2 hours every 

other week with Jakob to verify that he was progressing, and 

she said that between October 2010 and the end of the 2011 

school year, Jakob “progressed wonderfully.” Wolf stressed 

that Jakob will need to continue ABA services because he 

has autistic characteristics and because he responded well to 

ABA therapy.

Brian testified that Jakob’s ABA services are at risk. Brian 

offered evidence that Wolf’s business is one of very few providing ABA services in Nebraska, but indicated that there are 

opportunities for the same type of therapy in Texas. Brian 

stated concern that Jakob’s treatment would become unavailable in Nebraska if Wolf’s business did not continue providing 

the same services. Wolf testified that although she could not 

provide the names of any ABA services in Dallas-Fort Worth, 

she knew there were a “good number” available, noting there 

were more providers in Texas than in Nebraska.

Brian also testified that his primary concern was making 

sure the ABA services, speech therapy, and occupational services for Jakob in Texas would be as good as or better than the 

services provided in Nebraska. He stated he believed moving 

would be in Jakob’s best interests because of the plethora of 

ABA-related businesses in Texas. He personally visited one 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

762 20 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

business and took Jakob there to visit and be observed. He also 

stated that Texas would be more favorable because insurance 

mandates require coverage of Jakob’s treatment in the state and 

that the same type of mandates are not in place in Nebraska. 

He also testified that he believed he would be able to earn 

more money to support Jakob’s care.

The district court sent a letter to the parties on October 

19, 2011, following the modification proceedings on August 

25. The court increased the child support owed from Randi 

to Brian from $1,046 to $1,365.71 per month. The court also 

found Brian did not meet the tests for showing a legitimate reason to leave the state, and it denied Brian’s request to remove 

Jakob from the state. The court’s order was filed in the district 

court for Cass County on January 26, 2012. Brian appealed the 

order of the district court on February 1.

III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

[1] Brian does not specifically assign errors in accordance 

with Nebraska’s rules of appellate procedure. However, an 

appellate court may, at its option, notice plain error. United 

States Cold Storage v. City of La Vista, 285 Neb. 579, ___ 

N.W.2d ___ (2013). We elect to do so in this case.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[2,3] Child custody determinations, 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. Wild v. Wild, 15 Neb. App. 

717, 737 N.W.2d 882 (2007). A judicial abuse of discretion 

requires that the reasons or rulings of a trial judge be clearly 

untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right 

and a just result. Robb v. Robb, 268 Neb. 694, 687 N.W.2d 

195 (2004).

V. ANALYSIS

[4,5] The Supreme Court has cautioned that parties who 

wish to secure appellate review of their claims for relief must 

be aware of, and abide by, the rules of the Nebraska Supreme 

Court and the Nebraska Court of Appeals in presenting such 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

STEFFY v. STEFFY 763

Cite as 20 Neb. App. 757

claims. In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Larson, 270 

Neb. 837, 708 N.W.2d 262 (2006). Any party who fails to 

properly identify and present its claim in accordance with the 

Supreme Court rules does so at its peril and risks the appellate 

court’s declining to address the claim. See id.

We note at the outset that Brian’s brief does not comply with 

Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(1) (rev. 2008), which sets forth 

with specificity the nine sections required in an appellant’s 

brief and the order in which they must appear. In relevant part, 

§ 2-109(D)(1)(e) required:

[a] separate, concise statement of each error a party 

contends was made by the trial court, together with 

the issues pertaining to the assignments of error. Each 

assignment of error shall be separately numbered and 

paragraphed, bearing in mind that consideration of the 

case will be limited to errors assigned and discussed. 

The court may, at its option, notice a plain error not 

assigned.

In this case, Brian does not set forth a separate section containing his assignments of error between the statement of the 

case and the propositions of law. Rather, a secondary table of 

contents refers to the page numbers on which his assignments 

of error are argued.

[6,7] The Nebraska Supreme Court has addressed briefing 

inconsistencies similar to the circumstances of this case and 

stated that it has long been the policy that to be considered 

by an appellate court, an alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in the brief of the party 

asserting the error. City of Gordon v. Montana Feeders, Corp., 

273 Neb. 402, 730 N.W.2d 387 (2007). Recently, the Supreme 

Court considered a case in which the appellant’s brief did not 

contain a separate “assignments of error” section stating the 

assigned errors apart from the arguments in the brief. The 

court held that “[a]ssignments of error consisting of headings 

or subparts of argument do not comply with the mandate of 

§ 2-109(D)(1)(e).” In re Interest of Jamyia M., 281 Neb. 964, 

977, 800 N.W.2d 259, 269 (2011).

[8,9] In such situations, the court may consider the case as 

one in which no brief was filed, or, alternatively, the court may 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

764 20 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

examine the proceedings for plain error. Id. “Plain error” is 

error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that 

to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, 

reputation, or fairness of the judicial process. Id.

We review the record for plain error, and, upon review, we 

find plain error is present for the reasons set forth below.

1. Application of Threshold Test Requiring

Legitimate Reason to Remove

Child From Nebraska

[10] In Nebraska, the standards set forth in Farnsworth 

v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999), and 

Wild v. Wild, 13 Neb. App. 495, 696 N.W.2d 886 (2005), 

are commonly used to test whether a parent has met the 

burden to remove a minor child from the state. In Wild, this 

court stated:

The relevant test to be applied in cases where a 

custodial parent seeks court permission to remove a 

minor child from the state has been set forth by the 

Nebraska Supreme Court on numerous occasions. See, 

Tremain v. Tremain[, 264 Neb. 328, 646 N.W.2d 661 

(2002)]; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin[, 264 Neb. 232, 647 

N.W.2d 577 (2002)]; Vogel v. Vogel[, 262 Neb. 1030, 

637 N.W.2d 611 (2002)]; Brown v. Brown[, 260 Neb. 

954, 621 N.W.2d 70 (2000)]; Jack v. Clinton[, 259 Neb. 

198, 609 N.W.2d 328 (2000)]; . . . Farnsworth, supra.

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. 

Id. Under Nebraska law, the burden has been placed 

on the custodial parent to satisfy this test. See . . . 

Brown, supra.

13 Neb. App. at 503, 696 N.W.2d at 895.

Brian argues the district court abused its discretion in applying the tests to this case because the noncustodial parent, Randi, 

no longer lives in Nebraska and she should not be allowed to 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

STEFFY v. STEFFY 765

Cite as 20 Neb. App. 757

tether him to the state. He argues that Randi has not resided in 

Nebraska since the inception of the divorce action and that she 

does not exercise her visitation within the state. He argues that 

she no longer has sufficient contacts within the state and that 

she should not be given the same remedies as parents within 

the state, because her “career choices have isolated her from” 

the state. Brief for appellant at 17.

This court has consistently applied the above test to situations where parents request removal of a child, whether or 

not the noncustodial parent lives in Nebraska. See Colling v. 

Colling, ante p. 98, 818 N.W.2d 637 (2012), where both parties resided in Nebraska. See, also, Maranville v. Dworak, 17 

Neb. App. 245, 758 N.W.2d 70 (2008) (custodial parent, who 

relocated after being granted permission to remove children, 

sought subsequent move to yet another state); Tirado v. Tirado, 

No. A-11-517, 2012 WL 882509 (Neb. App. Mar. 13, 2012) 

(selected for posting to court Web site) (noncustodial parent 

lived outside of Nebraska and sought to prevent custodial parent in Nebraska from moving to another state).

The lower court recognized that the facts of this case presented a somewhat unusual issue due to Randi’s living outside 

of Nebraska, but the court ultimately determined it should 

not “deviate from the Nebraska jurisprudence as set forth in” 

Farnsworth, supra, “and the cases following Farnsworth.” 

We recognize that in Farnsworth, the court’s primary concern 

was to avoid disturbing the relationship between the child and 

the noncustodial parent, who has a consistent physical presence in the child’s life. When the noncustodial parent is geographically removed from the child, however, it is uncertain 

whether the custodial parent must prove a legitimate reason 

for leaving the state as Farnsworth requires. Nonetheless, in 

the present case, Brian established a legitimate reason for his 

proposed move.

2. Legitimate Reason for Removal

From Nebraska

[11] The threshold question in removal cases is whether the 

parent wishing to remove the child from the state has a legitimate reason for leaving. See Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

766 20 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999). In this appeal, Brian argues 

that this standard does not apply to his situation. We determine 

that even if this standard applies, the trial court erred in finding 

that Brian had not met his burden of proving he had a legitimate reason for leaving the state.

[12,13] Legitimate employment opportunities for a custodial parent may constitute a legitimate reason for leaving the 

state. Wild v. Wild, 15 Neb. App. 717, 737 N.W.2d 882 (2007). 

Such legitimate employment opportunities may constitute a 

legitimate reason when there is a reasonable expectation of 

improvement in the career or occupation of the custodial parent. Id.

Brian provided evidence of his current income as a substitute teacher in Bellevue and evidence that a full-time teacher 

with his experience in the greater Omaha area would receive an 

annual salary between $30,000 and $31,000. He also testified 

he has had difficulty finding full-time employment in school 

districts in Nebraska.

Brian obtained salary information for a number of school 

districts near Dallas-Fort Worth. He provided evidence that 

a teacher with the same credentials in the Dallas-Fort Worth 

metropolitan area could earn a salary ranging from $47,000 

to $50,000. Brian’s employment-related reasons for moving to 

Texas included finding full-time employment in a school district offering higher pay and the lack of a state income tax in 

Texas. Brian testified that although there were many teaching 

positions available in Texas, he did not apply for any positions, 

because he had not yet received permission to leave Nebraska 

and thus would not have been able to accept a contract if one 

were offered. He also stated he waited to apply because he did 

not want to pay the certification costs for Texas until he was 

given permission to move. Sheri also researched teaching certification and jobs available in Texas, but decided not to apply 

until she and Brian were granted permission to move. She said, 

“[I]t would be premature to apply for something if we don’t 

have permission to leave.”

Brian wishes to pursue employment in Texas, where he 

could possibly earn nearly $20,000 more per year than with 

a full-time salary for a comparable job in Nebraska. The 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

STEFFY v. STEFFY 767

Cite as 20 Neb. App. 757

Farnsworth court stated that “job-related changes are legitimate reasons for moving where there is a ‘reasonable expectation of improvement in the career or occupation of the custodial parent,’” and that “where the custodial parent’s new job 

included a small increase in salary and increased potential for 

salary advancement.” 257 Neb. at 252, 597 N.W.2d at 600. 

The information Brian provided shows he has considered his 

choices carefully, and he set forth a reasoned discussion of 

why he should be allowed to move to Texas to pursue greater 

employment opportunities.

In previous Nebraska cases, courts have granted permission 

to remove a child in situations where parents showed they were 

actively pursuing employment; that they have applied for jobs, 

have interviews scheduled, or have received offers of employment. See Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 

N.W.2d 592 (1999). See, also, Jafari v. Jafari, 204 Neb. 622, 

284 N.W.2d 554 (1979). However, this case offers a unique 

set of facts and is distinguishable from other Nebraska cases 

in that the custodial parent, Brian, is tethered to Nebraska, 

while the noncustodial parent, Randi, is not. Currently, Brian is 

required to remain a resident of Nebraska, even though Randi 

does not live, work, or exercise her parenting time within 

the state.

Jakob’s education and treatment for autism spectrum disorder are further reasons Brian sought permission to move 

to Texas. Brian testified his primary concern when considering relocation was the continuation of ABA services, speech 

therapy, and occupational services for Jakob. Brian noted there 

are a plethora of service providers in Texas while, in contrast, 

Nebraska has very few.

Wolf testified that though there are other ABA service providers in eastern Nebraska, she is the only ABA-board-certified 

behavior analyst that provides services in schools and homes. 

Wolf stated that her company, Wolf Behavioral Consulting, is 

currently Jakob’s service provider and that he receives approximately 12 to 15 hours of ABA services in school per week. She 

said it is important for children with autism spectrum disorder 

to have the same quality of services throughout the year. She 

also testified that Jakob qualifies for extended school year 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

768 20 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

services, which are provided during the summer with the goal 

of helping children maintain the progress made throughout 

the year.

Wolf testified that her company is going to start “going in 

a different direction” and that unless another board-certified 

behavior analyst is found to pick up her services, there could 

be a gap in services for Jakob. Wolf said that there are more 

board-certified providers in Texas than in Nebraska and that 

she was personally familiar with one provider in Texas. Brian 

also testified that he was familiar with one provider in Texas. 

Brian said Jakob had already visited and been observed by that 

provider. Brian noted there is an insurance mandate in Texas 

which would ensure that Jakob would receive the treatment 

necessary for his diagnosis. Also, a larger pool of service providers would make it more likely that Jakob would receive the 

continuity of services he requires. Brian stated his belief that 

Texas would be a better place for Jakob academically, behaviorally, and therapeutically.

We find that Brian has provided enough information, under 

these specific circumstances, to show that the pursuit of fulltime employment in Texas and the increased educational and 

therapeutic opportunities for Jakob are legitimate reasons to 

remove Jakob from Nebraska.

A judicial abuse of discretion requires that the reasons or 

rulings of a trial judge be clearly untenable, unfairly depriving 

a litigant of a substantial right and a just result. Robb v. Robb, 

268 Neb. 694, 687 N.W.2d 195 (2004).

While operating under the assumption that Farnsworth

applies, the trial court found that Brian failed to meet his 

burden of showing a legitimate reason for removal. Without 

determining whether Farnsworth applies in this case, we find 

that the trial court abused its discretion, as Brian showed that 

the employment opportunities for him and for his current wife, 

Sheri, as well as the educational advantages for Jakob in Texas, 

are legitimate reasons for leaving Nebraska.

3. Best Interests of Minor Child

[14,15] After clearing the threshold of showing a legitimate 

reason for leaving the state, the custodial parent must next 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

STEFFY v. STEFFY 769

Cite as 20 Neb. App. 757

demonstrate that it is in the child’s best interests to continue 

living with him or her. Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 

242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999). Whether the proposed move is in 

the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration. 

Id. See, also, Evenson v. Evenson, 248 Neb. 719, 538 N.W.2d 

746 (1995).

[16] 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 that 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. 

Farnsworth, supra.

(a) Each Parent’s Motives

[17] The first factor that must be considered is each parent’s motives for seeking or opposing the removal of the 

minor child from the jurisdiction. 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 a 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 that Brian sought removal for a variety 

of reasons, including greater access to ABA services for Jakob, 

the potential for a better job, and to be closer to his extended 

family. We do not find any evidence that Brian sought removal 

in an effort to manipulate Randi or interfere with the established parenting time schedule.

We find that Randi opposed removal because it could 

potentially affect her parenting time. However, there is no 

evidence she would not be able to maintain the same schedule 

of monthly visits and extended time with Jakob during the 

summer. Randi also expressed concern that the move would 

make it difficult to continue exercising her parenting time at 

her sister’s home and could require hotel rental. However, 

Brian has demonstrated his willingness to continue a similar 

transportation arrangement for Randi’s parenting time, and 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

770 20 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

he has chosen a location that would require roughly the same 

travel distance and time, so Randi could continue her time 

with Jakob in her sister’s home. This factor does not weigh 

against removal.

(b) Quality of Life

[18] The second factor that must be considered is the potential that the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the 

child and the custodial parent. This factor requires an analysis 

of other considerations which bear upon the potential enhancement of the child’s quality of life. Wild, supra.

[19] 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 evaluates the following considerations: the emotional, physical, and developmental needs 

of the child; the child’s opinion or preference as to where to 

live; the extent to which the relocating parent’s income or 

employment will be enhanced; the degree to which housing or 

living conditions would be improved; the existence of educational advantages; the quality of the relationship between the 

child and each parent; the strength of the child’s ties to the 

present community and extended family there; and the likelihood that allowing or denying the removal would antagonize 

hostilities between the two parties. See id. 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. Id.

(c) Emotional, Physical, and 

Developmental Needs

Jakob is a child with special needs, and currently those 

needs are being met in Plattsmouth. He receives occupational 

therapy, speech therapy, and ABA services at his school. Jakob 

has been in the same school system since he began school, and 

he is surrounded by familiar faculty, staff, and students. The 

evidence shows this stability is beneficial for Jakob, and we do 

not diminish its importance in his education.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

STEFFY v. STEFFY 771

Cite as 20 Neb. App. 757

However, there is evidence that the same services may not 

be available in the future. Wolf, a provider of Jakob’s ABA 

services, testified that her business is changing, and there is 

the potential that she will stop providing such services or that 

another service provider will take the place of her business. 

There is also evidence that similar businesses are more prevalent in Texas, and Jakob has had contact with at least one such 

business in the past. Whether Jakob moves to Texas or remains 

in Nebraska, there is a potential for change in the ABA services 

he receives. The likelihood of a change in Wolf’s business, 

resulting in a loss of ABA services for Jakob, weighs in favor 

of removal.

(d) Jakob’s Opinion or Preference

Jakob did not testify at trial, and there is no evidence 

to reflect his preference. This factor does not weigh for or 

against removal.

(e) Enhancement of Income 

or Employment

As addressed more fully above, Brian requested to move 

to Texas to pursue full-time employment as a teacher. He currently is a substitute teacher and has had difficulty obtaining 

full-time employment in Nebraska. If he were to obtain a fulltime job in Texas, he could potentially earn more, as the base 

salary for teachers in Texas is higher than that in Omaha. He 

would also be able to retain more of his income, as there is no 

state income tax in Texas.

He also testified that in Texas, there is an insurance mandate 

requiring insurance companies to cover treatment for services 

to people with special needs. This mandate would include 

coverage for Jakob’s ABA services and could potentially take 

some of the financial burden off of Brian. This same mandate 

is not in effect in Nebraska, and if Brian’s insurance decided 

to stop paying for Jakob’s services, Brian would be responsible for paying for the services. This factor weighs in favor 

of removal, as the move could enhance Brian’s income and 

employment, as well as ensure insurance coverage so Jakob 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

772 20 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

would continue to receive the treatment he needs without an 

additional financial burden on Brian.

(f) Housing or Living Conditions

The evidence does not reflect housing or living conditions 

either in Nebraska or in Texas, so these factors do not weigh 

for or against removal.

(g) Quality of Relationship Between 

Child and Parents

The record in the present case indicates that Jakob has a 

good relationship with both parties, and there is no evidence 

that removal will adversely affect those relationships. Jakob 

would continue to live with Brian, and Randi would continue 

to have parenting time according to the established schedule. 

This factor weighs in favor of removal.

(h) Ties to Community and 

Extended Family

The evidence shows that Jakob has lived in the same community since the age of two and that he is familiar with its 

people and surroundings. The trial court accurately stated, 

“Jakob’s ties to the present community . . . are clear.” However, 

he has no extended family in that community or anywhere in 

Nebraska. Randi’s parents live in South Dakota, and Randi’s 

sister, as previously stated, lives in Missouri. Jakob has a relationship with these family members, but he would still be able 

to see them and spend time with them during Randi’s parenting 

time if she continued to exercise it in Missouri.

A move to Texas would provide Jakob with greater access 

to Brian’s extended family. Brian testified that several of his 

family members live in Texas. This includes Brian’s older 

brother and his wife in Grand Prairie, Brian’s nephew in 

Farmer’s Branch, Brian’s sister in Richardson, Brian’s younger 

brother in Rio Grande Valley, and Brian’s mother and several 

stepsiblings in other parts of the state. Additionally, Sheri has 

extended family in Oklahoma.

There are benefits both to living in Nebraska and to living in 

Texas with regard to this factor, but, overall, the benefits weigh 

in favor of removal.
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

STEFFY v. STEFFY 773

Cite as 20 Neb. App. 757

(i) Hostilities Between Parties

Another element to consider when determining whether 

removal will enhance the quality of life for a child is the likelihood that allowing or denying the removal would antagonize 

hostilities between the two parties. Wild v. Wild, 13 Neb. App. 

495, 696 N.W.2d 886 (2005).

The trial court’s letter indicates a finding that though Brian 

and Randi have worked together in the past, this removal will 

create hostilities between the parties.

However, a review of the record indicates removal would 

not necessarily antagonize hostilities between the parties. Brian 

testified at trial that he and Randi have a history of working 

together for Jakob’s benefit. The record indicates Brian and 

Randi have adjusted Randi’s parenting time to accommodate 

her schedule, and Brian and Randi routinely met between 

Plattsmouth and Platte City to minimize the amount of parenting time Randi spent driving. There is no evidence that this 

arrangement could not continue, as Brian has demonstrated his 

willingness to meet her halfway from Texas.

We find this factor does not weigh in favor of or against 

removal.

(j) Conclusion on Quality of Life

Our de novo review of the record leads us to a conclusion that the quality of life considerations weigh in favor of 

allowing Brian to permanently remove Jakob from Nebraska. 

In the present case, the various considerations either weighed 

in favor of removal or were roughly equal. Overall, the evidence in the record demonstrates that the proposed removal 

from Nebraska will enhance Jakob’s quality of life without 

jeopardizing his treatment, his education, or the time spent 

with Randi.

(k) Impact on Relationship With 

Noncustodial Parent

Currently, Randi exercises her parenting time with Jakob on 

weekends and for extended periods over the summer months. 

Randi testified that the nature of her position with the Army 

makes it difficult for her to take time off and that she has 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

774 20 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

to request a “pass” or be on ordinary vacation leave anytime 

she needs to leave Louisville to see Jakob. Typically, she 

travels from Louisville to Missouri and meets Brian halfway 

between her sister’s home and Brian’s home. Then Randi and 

Jakob return to her sister’s home for the remaining period of 

her parenting time. Brian testified that the distances between 

Louisville and Plattsmouth and between Louisville and Irving, 

Texas, are roughly the same and that he would be willing 

to continue with the same type of arrangement for meeting 

and transferring Jakob to Randi’s care for parenting time. 

Regardless of whether Jakob lives in Nebraska or Texas, Randi 

will still have to travel for parenting time, and she will still be 

able to exercise her parenting time in Missouri. Additionally, 

removal will not affect Randi’s ability to exercise parenting 

time with Jakob during the summer in Louisville.

Randi and Brian do not live or work in the same community, so Brian’s move with Jakob to a place that is roughly 

equidistant from Randi’s home will not jeopardize Randi’s 

time with Jakob. Under the circumstances, there is no evidence 

the move from Plattsmouth to Texas will greatly affect the 

relationship between Randi and Jakob, and this factor weighs 

in favor of removal.

(l) Conclusion on Best Interests

A de novo review of the evidence shows that the parents 

were not motivated by an effort to frustrate or manipulate each 

other, that the move would enhance Jakob’s quality of life, 

and that the move would not greatly impact the relationship 

between Randi and Jakob. The record demonstrates sufficient 

evidence that it is in Jakob’s best interests to allow Jakob to be 

removed from Nebraska to Texas.

(m) Conclusion on Removal

We conclude that Brian has adduced sufficient evidence to 

show a legitimate reason to leave Nebraska and that the move 

would be in Jakob’s best interests. We find it was an abuse 

of discretion for the trial court to require Brian to remain in 

Nebraska with Jakob, because under the unique circumstances 
Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals

STEFFY v. STEFFY 775

Cite as 20 Neb. App. 757

of this case, the trial court’s decision deprives Brian of a 

just result.

(n) Unconstitutional Burden 

on Travel

[20,21] Brian argues that the federal Constitution provides a 

fundamental right to interstate travel, which should permit him 

to relocate from Nebraska to Texas. An appellate court will not 

consider an issue that was not passed upon by the trial court. 

See Capital City Telephone v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 264 Neb. 

515, 650 N.W.2d 467 (2002). Further, the Nebraska Supreme 

Court has held that a constitutional issue not presented to or 

passed upon by the trial court is not appropriate for consideration on appeal. Id. See In re Adoption of Luke, 263 Neb. 365, 

640 N.W.2d 374 (2002). This issue was not presented or passed 

upon during trial before the lower court and, thus, cannot be 

raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, we decline to 

consider this issue.

VI. CONCLUSION

Assuming without deciding whether a custodial parent must 

meet the requirements of Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 

242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999), when the noncustodial parent 

resides outside of the state, the evidence supports the conclusion that Brian proved both a legitimate reason for removal and 

that removal from Nebraska to Texas is in Jakob’s best interests. We find plain error and reverse the decision of the district 

court, which denied Brian’s request for removal.

The portions of the district court’s order unrelated to removal 

are affirmed.

Affirmed in part, and in part reversed.