- 511 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

Samantha L. Kashyap, appellant, 

v. Shaan S. Kashyap, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed November 6, 2018. No. A-17-906.

1. Divorce: Appeal and Error. In actions for dissolution of marriage, an 

appellate court reviews the case de novo on the record to determine 

whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge.

2. Divorce: Child Custody: Child Support: Property Division: Alimony: 

Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. In actions for dissolution of marriage, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s determinations regarding custody, child support, division of property, alimony, and attorney 

fees de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse 

of discretion.

3. Judgments: Words and Phrases. An abuse of discretion occurs when 

a trial court bases its decision upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, 

and evidence.

4. Child Custody: Appeal and Error. In child custody cases, where the 

credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate 

court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial judge 

heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts 

rather than another.

5. Child Custody. When deciding custody issues, the court’s paramount 

concern is the child’s best interests.

6. ____. In determining the best interests of a child in a custody determination, a court must consider pertinent factors, such as 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.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

11/06/2018 08:11 AM CST
- 512 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

7. ____. The fact that one parent might interfere with the other’s relationship with the child is a factor the trial court may consider in granting 

custody, but it is not a determinative factor.

8. ____. A court must determine that joint custody (legal or physical) is 

in a minor child’s best interests regardless of any parental agreement 

or consent.

9. ____. 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.

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

jurisdiction is in the child’s best interests, the trial 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 a move will have on 

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

the light of reasonable visitation.

11. Child Custody. 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 child, a court should consider the following 

factors: (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 move 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.

12. ____. 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 factors. Depending on the circumstances of a particular case, any one factor or combination of factors 

may be variously weighted.

13. Child Custody: Visitation. Consideration of the impact of removal of 

children to another jurisdiction on the noncustodial parent’s visitation 

focuses on the ability of the noncustodial parent to maintain a meaningful parent-child relationship.
- 513 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Peter

C. Bataillon, Judge. Affirmed.

Andrew M. Ferguson, of Carlson & Burnett, L.L.P., for 

appellant.

Kelly T. Shattuck, of Vacanti Shattuck, for appellee.

Moore, Chief Judge, and Bishop and Arterburn, Judges.

Bishop, Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Douglas County District Court dissolved the marriage between Samantha L. Kashyap and Shaan S. Kashyap. 

Although Samantha was initially granted the temporary care, 

custody, and control of the parties’ minor child, and the parties subsequently agreed to joint legal custody in a mediated 

partial parenting plan, the district court ultimately awarded the 

legal and physical custody of the child to Shaan. In doing so, 

the district court expressed concern about Samantha’s interference with Shaan’s parenting time, along with other issues. The 

district court also granted Shaan’s request to remove the child 

from Nebraska to Arizona, where Shaan was stationed in the 

military. Samantha was ordered to pay child support. Samantha 

appeals, challenging the district court’s decision on custody, 

removal, and child support. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

The parties were married on February 8, 2012, in Omaha, 

Nebraska, and their daughter, Liliana Kashyap (Lily), was 

born in August 2013. (We note that the parties’ testimony suggests the marriage was in 2013, but documents in the transcript 

indicate otherwise. Also, the parties’ testimony conflicts with 

documents in the transcript regarding Lily’s birth year being 

2012 or 2013. Therefore, we have relied on the dates provided 

in the decree dissolving the parties’ marriage.) In August 

2015, Shaan, a staff sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, was stationed in England when Samantha decided to leave England 
- 514 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

and return to Omaha, taking Lily with her. Samantha then 

moved from Omaha to an apartment in Ashland, Nebraska, 

in February or March 2016. Samantha filed a complaint for 

dissolution of marriage on June 23 in the Saunders County 

District Court; Shaan filed an answer and counterclaim shortly 

thereafter, and it indicated he was still stationed in England. 

He requested “large blocks” of parenting time, since Lily was 

not yet of school age.

An order filed on August 8, 2016, placed temporary custody 

with Samantha and granted Shaan “FaceTime” with Lily three 

times per week. Any other parenting time was to be by agreement when Shaan was in the United States. Shaan was ordered 

to pay $521 per month in temporary child support commencing 

August 1, and the parties were ordered to equally share daycare costs. The divorce action was transferred to the Douglas 

County District Court in December, because Samantha moved 

from Ashland back to Omaha in September.

On February 17, 2017, Shaan filed a motion for further 

temporary orders. He claimed that Samantha had two other 

children with different fathers and had lost custody “due to 

her instability and inability to cooperate.” He stated that he 

had not been allowed to exercise parenting time with Lily, that 

Samantha refused to communicate in any meaningful way, and 

that she had denied him “all access” to Lily.

A hearing took place on March 8, 2017, although the order 

setting forth the court’s orally pronounced decision was not 

formally filed until July 10. The court awarded Shaan parenting time with Lily while he was in Omaha from March 8 to 

14. The March 8 parenting time was to take place from noon 

until 8 p.m., and the parties were to meet at the “Omaha Zoo”; 

Samantha was permitted to be present for this parenting time. 

The parties were ordered to mediate a parenting plan, including 

a parenting schedule for the upcoming summer, since Shaan 

would be at a military base in Arizona by May. The parties 

were ordered to exchange and keep current their addresses and 

contact information.
- 515 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

The next day, March 9, 2017, Shaan filed a “Motion to 

Compel Parental Visits.” It indicated that based on the parenting schedule set out by the court at the hearing on March 8, 

the parties were to have met at the zoo for Shaan’s parenting time with Lily. However, Samantha sent a text message 

claiming an emergency and altered the meeting time and 

place to 4:30 p.m. at a shopping mall. The motion alleged 

that Samantha showed up with a boyfriend (and his child) and 

that they stayed until only 7:15 p.m., despite the court’s order 

that parenting time was to last until 8 p.m. Shaan alleged he 

had been in town nearly a week and was refused parenting 

time until the court-ordered March 8 time, which Samantha 

altered. Shaan requested an order compelling Samantha to 

abide by the court’s terms as set out at the March 8 hearing. 

A hearing took place on March 10. When the court asked 

Samantha why she had not complied with its order, Samantha 

replied she had to get her medication and “needed the forms 

filled out on base . . . because our ID’s expired” and so she 

had to get that done. She also claimed to have “female issues” 

that necessitated her returning home. After confirming what 

the parenting time arrangements were going to be, the court 

advised the parties, “When I issue an order, I expect the order 

to be complied with,” and “[i]f there’s a problem, then the 

parties all need to know what the problem is and they have to 

resolve it mutually.” The court further cautioned that it would 

“look and see how the parties act during this period of time” 

because it helps the court “make a good decision as to what’s 

in the best interest of the child long term.”

A mediated partial parenting plan was filed May 15, 2017. 

The parties agreed to joint legal custody and holiday parenting 

time, but could not agree on physical custody or regular parenting time.

Trial took place on July 18, 2017, and the district court 

orally pronounced its decision the next day. A decree dissolving the marriage was entered July 26; it awarded legal and 

physical custody of Lily to Shaan, granted Shaan’s request to 

remove Lily to Arizona, and ordered Samantha to pay child 
- 516 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

support. The evidence from trial and the court’s findings will 

be set forth as relevant below.

III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Samantha assigns that the district court abused its discretion 

by (1) granting Shaan sole legal and physical custody of the 

parties’ minor child, (2) granting Shaan permission to remove 

the child from Nebraska to Arizona, and (3) ordering Samantha 

to pay child support.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] In actions for dissolution of marriage, an appellate 

court reviews the case de novo on the record to determine 

whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial 

judge. Coufal v. Coufal, 291 Neb. 378, 866 N.W.2d 74 (2015). 

This standard of review applies to the trial court’s determinations regarding custody, child support, division of property, 

alimony, and attorney fees. Id.

[3] An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court bases 

its decision upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable 

or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, 

and evidence. Flores v. Flores-Guerrero, 290 Neb. 248, 859 

N.W.2d 578 (2015).

[4] In child custody cases, where the credible evidence is in 

conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial judge heard 

and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the 

facts rather than another. Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98, 858 

N.W.2d 865 (2015).

V. ANALYSIS

1. Custody

Samantha claims the district court abused its discretion by 

awarding legal and physical custody of Lily solely to Shaan. 

She argues, “It was an abuse of discretion for the court to 

award legal custody to Shaan alone.” Brief for appellant at 12. 

And she argues that “sole physical custody should have been 
- 517 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

granted to [her] because Shaan moved to another jurisdiction.” Id. at 13. These arguments indicate that Samantha is not 

opposed to joint legal custody of Lily, but that physical custody 

should have been awarded to her.

[5] When deciding custody issues, the court’s paramount 

concern is the child’s best interests. Citta v. Facka, 19 Neb. 

App. 736, 812 N.W.2d 917 (2012). Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2923(6) 

(Reissue 2016) states, in pertinent part:

In determining custody and parenting arrangements, the 

court shall consider the best interests of the minor child, 

which shall include, but not be limited to, consideration 

of the foregoing factors and:

(a) The relationship of the minor child to each parent 

prior to the commencement of the action or any subsequent hearing;

(b) The desires and wishes of the minor child, if of 

an age of comprehension but regardless of chronological 

age, when such desires and wishes are based on sound 

reasoning;

(c) The general health, welfare, and social behavior of 

the minor child;

(d) Credible evidence of abuse inflicted on any family 

or household member. . . ; and

(e) Credible evidence of child abuse or neglect or 

domestic intimate partner abuse.

[6] Other pertinent factors include 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. 

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

(a) District Court’s Decision

Following trial on July 18, 2017, the district court directed the 

parties to return the next day for the court’s oral pronouncement 
- 518 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

of its decision. On July 19, the court stated to the parties, in 

relevant part:

The Court finds that [Shaan] is a fit and proper parent to 

be awarded [Lily’s] custody, and as such the Court awards 

the sole legal and physical custody of [Lily] to [Shaan]. 

The Court finds that [Samantha] is not a fit and proper 

person to have custody of [Lily].

The Court notes that the parties have agreed to joint 

legal custody. The Court is rejecting their stipulation . . . . 

And the reason for the Court’s rejection of this is the parties do not communicate. [Samantha] has done whatever 

she can to thwart any type of meaningful and appropriate 

contact between [Lily] and [Shaan].

[Samantha,] I’m finding that you are not [a fit and] 

proper person to be awarded custody of this child, number one, you have thwarted . . . all reasonable efforts 

by [Shaan], the father, to have appropriate contact with 

[Lily]. You have prevented that, which is absolutely 

inappropriate. You have a huge problem with veracity. You don’t tell the truth very well. You’re not stable. You’re going from house to house. You do not 

make good decisions for [Lily]. You’ve introduced some 

other man, stranger, to [her] when you’re still married, 

and [she] has been living on and off with your boyfriend now for the last year, which is inappropriate. You 

also have some morality issues that are a concern for 

the Court.

As to [Shaan], the Court finds that he is the best parent in this case and it’s in the best interest of [Lily] to be 

placed with him.

The Court never likes to split up the geographical locations of the parties and the Court understands that that 

sometimes is necessary. The best interest of the child is 

. . . for the parents to remain married and have a stable 

environment. You people chose not to do that. The next 

thing for the best interest of the child is [for] the parents 
- 519 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

to get along. You people can’t do that. The next best interest for the child is that the parent[s] live in the same city. 

That can’t be done in this matter.

And, [Samantha], you chose not to do that when you 

decided to move from England when you were still married to [Shaan].

The Court’s also concerned, [Samantha], as to your 

lack of parental time with your other two children that 

are your daughter and your son. The excuse that you . . . 

may have cervical cancer, the doctor thinks you had that 

in May, it just doesn’t hold any water, it doesn’t hold any 

weight, it doesn’t hold any logic. Assuming you even do 

have that condition, you still have an obligation to have 

appropriate contact with your children.

You also haven’t paid your child support obligation 

for those children and there was no reason, good reason 

shown, why that was not the case.

Also, one of the things I look at is the parent that 

receives the custody, which parent is more likely to make 

sure the child has an appropriate relationship with the 

other parent. In this case, it’s a given that it’s the father, 

[Shaan], and you, [Samantha], because you’ve had the 

opportunity for the last two years and you’ve done whatever you can to thwart that.

Even if I assumed you were a fit and proper parent, I 

would still grant the custody to [Shaan] and allow him to 

move to Arizona. The legitimate reason for him to move 

there is . . . his position with the Air Force. . . .

The quality of life that [Lily] will have, she’ll be with 

the parent that I believe will foster a good relationship 

with the other parent. It’s in the best interest for her emotionally, physical[ly], to be with [Shaan].

The housing she’ll have there is better than here in 

Omaha . . . you go between two and three houses. If I left 

[Lily] here, all it’s going to do is cause more court battles 

because . . . I believe that you’re a creature of habit and 
- 520 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

. . . you’ll continue to act as you have preventing any type 

of meaningful contact between [Shaan] and [Lily].

The July 26, 2017, decree set forth, in part, the above 

findings.

(b) Samantha’s Argument

Samantha initially argues that the district court abused its 

discretion by finding her unfit to have custody. We find it 

unnecessary to address Samantha’s parental unfitness argument, because the court specifically held that it would have 

made the same decision even if it concluded Samantha was a 

fit and proper parent. Therefore, in our de novo review of the 

record, we will similarly assume parental fitness and focus 

only on whether the district court abused its discretion by 

awarding Shaan sole legal and physical custody based on the 

evidence presented.

Samantha contends it was an abuse of discretion for the 

court “to consider Samantha’s relationship outside her marriage 

because the court made no finding that it negatively impacted 

[Lily].” Brief for appellant at 9. She argues that the court “cabined [its] finding as one solely of ‘morality.’” Id. Samantha 

further argues that she “had been making most, if not all, major 

decisions” relating to Lily and that there was no evidence 

showing any negative impact on Lily. Id. at 11. Therefore, 

Samantha challenges the court’s finding that she did not make 

good decisions for Lily, arguing that the court recited “what it 

perceives as Samantha’s personal shortcomings,” rather than 

stating how Lily has been negatively impacted by Samantha’s 

actions. Id.

Samantha claims the court “wholly failed to recognize that 

Samantha had been the primary caregiver for [Lily] for her 

entire life” and that Shaan “had not cared for [Lily] overnight 

since August 2015.” Id. She states that “Shaan’s relationship with [Lily] was essentially limited to phone calls and 

FaceTime” and that “[t]hese are not [the] proper foundations 

upon which a grant of custody should be supported.” Id.
- 521 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

Finally, Samantha contends that Shaan’s “ability to parent 

and care for [Lily] full time was speculative at best.” Id. at 12. 

As for Shaan’s assertion that his parents would be helping him 

care for Lily, Samantha says this was only speculation, since 

neither of Shaan’s parents testified. Samantha claims Shaan’s 

ability to parent is speculative, whereas “[t]here is no speculation needed regarding Samantha’s ability to care for [Lily], 

because she [has] been the sole provider for all [her] needs for 

the past two (2) years.” Id.

(c) Evidence

Samantha testified that she was 28 years old and was residing half the time in her parents’ home in Omaha and half the 

time at her boyfriend’s apartment in Gretna, Nebraska. Lily 

shares a room with Samantha when staying at Samantha’s parents’ home, but has her own bed. Lily has her own room when 

staying at Samantha’s boyfriend’s apartment, unless the boyfriend’s 6-year-old daughter is also present, then the children 

share a room. Samantha had graduated from a cosmetology 

school in January 2017 and was about to start a new, full-time 

job as a hairstylist.

Shaan testified that he was 36 years old and was a jet engine 

mechanic, with about 6 years left before he planned to retire 

from the Air Force with 20 years of service. He said he will 

be finishing his military service at his current assignment in 

Arizona, with no risk of any temporary deployments. Shaan 

was renting a three-bedroom house in a neighborhood near the 

military base; Lily would have her own bedroom and bathroom there.

(i) Other Children

Shaan and Samantha each have children from past relationships. Shaan testified that he has an 11-year-old son; the son’s 

mother is also in the Air Force and has physical custody of 

their son. Samantha has two other children; each has a different 

father. Samantha testified that she has an 8-year-old daughter 

(older daughter) and a 6-year-old son. At the time of trial in 
- 522 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

July 2017, Samantha was restricted to supervised parenting 

time with her older daughter as a result of sexual contact allegations involving Samantha’s teenage brother (who was also 

living in her parents’ home) and Samantha’s older daughter. 

Her last supervised parenting time with her older daughter 

took place in May 2017. Samantha explained she had been 

“extremely busy with work” and not able “to have times that 

cooperate with each other.”

The father of Samantha’s 6-year-old son testified that he had 

sole custody of their son. Samantha was provided alternating 

weekend parenting time and one evening per week; however, 

she had not exercised any parenting time with their son since 

April 2017. According to Samantha, this was because she was 

“dealing with some health issues and was not wanting to bring 

it to [her son’s] attention.” When pressed by the court’s questions for more of an explanation on this, Samantha said that 

her doctor told her in May 2017 there was a “good chance 

[she] had cervical cancer” and that she was still undergoing 

testing and had not yet had a biopsy done. The court expressed 

concern that 2 months had passed from when the doctor 

thought she might have cervical cancer and that no biopsy 

had been done yet. Samantha responded there was a scan that 

had to be done 2 weeks ago, “and they were trying to determine if it was bad enough to have to get a biopsy done” or if 

it “[wasn’t] as serious as what they were thinking.” Although 

she did not know whether she had cervical cancer, she did not 

spend time with her son because when he was between the 

ages of 2 and 4, “he watched his grandmother go through it 

and I don’t want him to watch me go through it . . . and I’m 

just having a really hard time dealing with it.” When asked 

how her son knew about his grandmother’s cancer, Samantha 

said, “Because she talked about it constantly . . . I feel like she 

showed it off. I mean, she still walks around with her monitor 

on her.” Upon this questioning from the court, Samantha said 

this was the same reason she had not seen her older daughter 

since May. When asked why she would not see her children 
- 523 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

before knowing if she had cancer or starting any cancer treatments, Samantha replied, “I don’t know. I’ve just been trying 

to push it away . . . .”

The father of Samantha’s 6-year-old son also testified that 

Samantha was ordered to pay $200 per month in child support and that he thought she was about $8,000 behind in child 

support. The father also said that Samantha asked him “to 

write a letter to help her out in court,” which would say that 

she was paying her child support and was current. According 

to the father, Samantha wanted him to lie because “it would 

help her out.” Samantha testified otherwise. She claimed that 

she was talking with her son’s father about how to pay her 

back child support and that she asked if he would write a letter about why Samantha is “a good enough parent for Lily 

and [Lily] shouldn’t go overseas, but that was it.” Samantha 

testified it had nothing to do with lying about paying off 

child support.

(ii) Past Criminal Matters

Samantha testified about a couple past criminal charges. 

On December 31, 2016, Samantha hit her current boyfriend 

in the face. Samantha was charged with assault, but ended up 

pleading to disorderly conduct. Samantha explained that at 

the time, she had recently had a miscarriage so her “hormones 

were a little bit out of whack to say the least because I was 

upset.” She was taking painkillers, and she and her boyfriend 

argued and she hit him in the face. She served 2 days in jail. 

And then in 2012, Samantha was charged with assault and 

negligent care of a minor; the negligent care of a minor charge 

was dismissed, and she pled to disturbing the peace. Samantha 

said that charge arose when her older daughter acted out and 

said hateful things to Shaan. “[S]he got out of control and 

started throwing a fit and so I spanked her,” and the older 

daughter’s father claimed a bruise on the older daughter’s 

“bottom” was from being spanked by Samantha. Samantha 

said the bruise was from when the older daughter had previously fallen in the bathtub.
- 524 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

(iii) Time in England and Parties’ 

Separation in August 2015

While in England, Shaan volunteered at a hospital 1 day 

per month, teaching “a new dads class”; he received a letter 

of appreciation from the commander of that hospital. Shaan 

said he was actively involved in raising Lily when the parties were together. Shaan testified that Samantha would stay 

up until 3 or 4 a.m. “watching shows downstairs or on her 

iPad and then she wouldn’t wake up the next day until . . . 

maybe about noon.” According to Shaan, Samantha would 

then sit with Lily in bed and watch shows and go back to 

sleep. When asked how he would know this since he was 

at work, Shaan stated that since Samantha went to sleep 

so late, he would ask Samantha what time she woke up. 

Samantha would tell him that “she woke up and just gave 

the kids Pop-Tarts and went back to sleep on the couch and 

just turned on a kids’ movie so she could go back to sleep.” 

Shaan also claimed Samantha drank excessively when she 

was in England. She would drink and not “know that point 

where she needed to stop . . . there was a lot of points I was 

cleaning vomit off of the sofa or she would be passed out in 

the bathroom.”

Shaan testified that prior to when Samantha left England, 

there were times when Samantha’s son or Shaan’s son would 

be at home, along with Lily, and Samantha would go on 

walks. When Shaan would suggest she take any of the children with her, they would get into an argument and she would 

tell him she just wanted to be alone. Samantha would tell 

him that “she doesn’t have to say where she’s going and she 

would just take off and go.” Shaan believed she “was meeting with people” during these times. Also, Samantha would 

say she was going out for a few drinks with “other guys” and 

would not return until 4 a.m. or so, “with excuses that they 

were waiting on trains or missed trains.” According to Shaan, 

“She was always very standoffish and angry that I was asking 

her questions.”
- 525 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

With regard to the parties’ separation in August 2015, 

Samantha said she left England at that time and moved back 

to Omaha because she was “sick of the instability.” She 

claimed “there were times where we’d literally run out of 

money and couldn’t go to the grocery store or get Lily diapers. I just couldn’t deal with it anymore.” She explained that 

being in a foreign country, she could not work, “couldn’t do 

anything,” and “[w]e couldn’t provide the daycare.” Also, 

“money was getting spent on things that I didn’t know where 

it was going,” and “I was just getting sick of running into the 

same issues.”

However, Shaan shed a different light on the cause of 

Samantha’s departure from England. Shaan disagreed that they 

had insufficient funds to buy things like diapers; rather, he testified there were other issues that arose which resulted in her 

leaving England. Shortly before she left, Shaan had found messages on Samantha’s telephone which suggested she was soliciting sex to make money. When Shaan confronted Samantha 

about it, she “broke down crying,” and “[f]ace to face she 

admitted that she did do it twice in England.” Evidence was 

received purporting to be photographs of text messages contained on Samantha’s cell phone which suggested she was 

doing this. According to Shaan, “She said she made an account 

online to meet gentlemen to do this, and she admits doing 

it two times. She felt that she needed to make some money 

somehow, someway. I didn’t understand why she felt that way 

because we were never in a financially bad situation.” Shaan 

testified this was the primary cause of the breakup of their marriage and why Samantha returned to Nebraska.

(iv) Interference With Shaan’s 

Parenting Time

Samantha’s primary argument for custody of Lily was that 

she had been Lily’s caregiver for the past 2 years and Shaan 

had not participated in things like “[d]octors, school, [and] 

daycare.” She claimed that since she moved back to Nebraska 
- 526 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

in August 2015, Shaan had only seen Lily one time in March 

2017 and then shortly before trial. She acknowledged that 

Shaan had asked for parenting time, but she denied his requests 

because she did not “feel comfortable taking Lily overseas and 

leaving her there.” Plus, she “can’t afford to take that time 

off of work to fly her back and forth.” And when Shaan has 

been “here” and asked for weekend visits or weeklong visits, 

Samantha also denied him parenting time because “[t]he only 

relationship they have is over a telephone . . . and . . . I was 

always the one taking care of her.” Shaan testified that prior to 

when Samantha filed for divorce, he asked if he could come 

and get Lily and bring her back with him, but she would refuse, 

saying she was breastfeeding or giving some other excuse that 

“she couldn’t come and drop Lily off or have me pick her up 

or she couldn’t leave Lily.” Shaan said he never asked for Lily 

to travel alone. Rather, he offered to come and pick Lily up and 

take her back with him.

Samantha acknowledged that Lily was supposed to have 

regular telephone contact or FaceTime with Shaan three times 

per week at 7 p.m., “but there’s been times where we haven’t 

been able to do all three.” She explained that sometimes it was 

her work schedule or that “sometimes I just lose track of the 

days that I’m working late and I forget to tell him until right 

before,” or she claimed that sometimes Shaan would forget.

When Shaan attempted to have parenting time with Lily in 

Virginia in June 2016, Samantha agreed and then canceled at 

the last minute. Samantha testified that she had agreed to bring 

Lily to Virginia and that she asked Shaan “for the money to 

get us down there.” Shaan testified that he was going to be 

in Virginia to pick up his son and return to England and that 

Shaan’s mother, his brother, and his brother’s children were 

going to be there. Shaan wanted Lily to be there “so she could 

see more of my family.” Shaan said that Samantha asked for 

$1,000 to drive there; he gave her $500 and told her he would 

give her the other half after they arrived. Samantha acknowledged that Shaan had volunteered to pay for airplane tickets for 
- 527 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

Samantha and Lily to fly to Virginia, but Samantha declined 

“because it’s easier for me to drive with Lily than fly. She hates 

being in planes.” Samantha claimed, however, that at the “last 

minute,” she could not go “because of work.” She said that two 

or three employees quit at the gym she worked at in Lincoln 

the day before she was scheduled to leave and that she could 

not get anyone to cover their shifts. Shaan believed Samantha 

had no intention of coming to Virginia because just 3 days after 

she was supposed to meet him in Virginia, Samantha signed the 

divorce complaint instead.

Further parenting interference occurred in March 2017. On 

March 8, a hearing took place in order for Shaan to secure 

parenting time with Lily. The court ordered what that parenting time would be, but Samantha immediately failed to 

comply, altering the time and place for Shaan’s parenting 

time. Appearing before the judge 2 days later on March 10, 

as discussed earlier, she gave the excuse that she had to go 

to the military base because “ID’s” had expired, plus she had 

“some female issues.” The court cautioned her that it expected 

compliance with its orders and that it would “look and see how 

the parties act during this period of time” when making a decision “as to what’s in the best interest of the child long term.” 

It was confirmed at the March 10 hearing that Shaan was to 

be picking up and dropping off Lily at Samantha’s parents’ 

home. Shaan testified that despite these very clear directives 

and the warning from the court, Samantha “would still change 

the locations of where I would pick [Lily] up, drop her off. It 

was never at a house. It was always at different establishments, 

a Walmart, a gas station, or a nail salon.” Further, Samantha 

would not give him more than 5 minutes’ notice before the 

scheduled meeting time, so Shaan had no idea where he was 

supposed to be. He said, “So usually I would be late because I 

wouldn’t have any idea where I was going to be picking her up 

or dropping her off.”

Then, in advance of the July 18, 2017, trial, Shaan sent 

Samantha several text messages informing her of his arrival in 
- 528 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

Omaha on July 10 (although he testified to flying into Omaha 

the “Sunday before last,” which was July 9) and requesting 

time with Lily. Shaan’s schedule and request for parenting time 

was also communicated by his attorney to Samantha’s attorney. 

Shaan tried every day to get time with Lily, but he was denied. 

Shaan testified:

[Samantha] said Lily was in school and had a routine. I 

would ask if I could have her for the week or overnights 

and she would say no, or if I could have her for the day, 

she would say no, if I could pick her up from daycare, she 

would say no.

Samantha finally agreed to 4 hours of visitation with Lily on 

the Sunday preceding trial. Shaan testified:

I originally asked if I could take [Lily] to the lake with 

my friends I’ve known for about 10 to 14 years with their 

children and she said no. She said that she had every 

right to dictate what I can and can’t do with Lily. And 

then . . . basically, it was just a negotiation, and it was 

a long process where I said, well, can I have her from 

9:00 to 4:00? And she said no. And then she said noon to 

4:00. And we just kind of went back and forth until we 

agreed on the time and a place where she agreed that we 

could go.

Shaan said that Samantha’s reason for not letting him have 

Lily as requested on that Sunday was because “[t]hey had family plans.”

Samantha acknowledged that although Shaan and his son 

had arrived in Omaha on July 9 or 10, 2017, she did not allow 

Shaan to have parenting time with Lily until she gave him 

4 hours on the Sunday (July 16) preceding trial (July 18). 

Samantha claimed that every time Shaan asked to see Lily, 

“it’s already after I’ve dropped her off at daycare.” Shaan 

would ask to pick Lily up at daycare, but Samantha said, “He’s 

not allowed to do that.” Samantha claimed that since the current court order says she has sole custody of Lily, the daycare 

is “not to release [Lily] to Shaan unless it changes.” She 
- 529 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

acknowledged she could have called the daycare and released 

Lily to Shaan, but she chose not to do so because she wanted 

to maintain Lily’s routine and she did not want to disrupt 

Lily’s education to see Shaan. She also testified that Shaan 

asked for overnights, “but he knows that I’m not comfortable 

with overnights.”

Shaan testified about his concerns that Samantha would be 

unreasonable in the future if she were awarded custody. He 

noted the circumstances precipitating the need for a second 

hearing in March 2017. Even though the court had ordered 

certain parenting time,

[w]e had to come back a second day for a hearing 

because she couldn’t follow the orders, the very next 

day, and still after that I couldn’t see [Lily] or pick her 

up, drop her off at the correct places. And I’ve already 

been here for over a week and only seen Lily for a day 

for a few hours, I don’t think it will change anything in 

the future with her.

(v) Communication Issues

From the March 2017 hearing until trial, Shaan said 

Samantha would never give him her address; she would tell 

him that he “should have paid attention in court or [he] should 

ask [his] lawyer.” The only address Shaan had for Samantha 

was her parents’ house; he did not know Samantha’s boyfriend’s address or that he had moved and was at a different address. During Shaan’s FaceTime with Lily, which was 

scheduled for three times per week at about 7 p.m., Shaan said 

Lily was never at Samantha’s house. “They were either at [the 

boyfriend’s] house . . . eating dinner, or in a car. Never once 

was she at her parents’ house.” Shaan said it was difficult to 

know what was going on with Samantha and Lily because any 

question he would ask Samantha would be met with “attitude” 

and with her accusing him of not caring.

An example of Samantha’s unwillingness to communicate 

occurred when Shaan tried to get records from “Lily’s ER 
- 530 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

visit.” According to Shaan, Samantha told him that he could 

call and “figure out where she went” and that he could “call 

the hospitals and get the records [him]self.” Samantha would 

not even tell Shaan which hospital or doctors; according to 

Shaan, Samantha would not give him any of that information “[b]ecause I can do it myself.” Shaan also testified that 

“about a year ago,” Samantha “totalled her vehicle when Lily 

was in the car and she never told [him] about it.” When Shaan 

confronted Samantha about it later, she told him “it was none 

of [his] business and [he] didn’t need to know because Lily 

was fine.” Additionally, Shaan said he asked Samantha repeatedly for pictures of Lily or has asked about Lily’s routine. 

“She says no. I didn’t even get a phone call or anything for 

Father’s Day.”

Shaan anticipated Samantha’s behavior would be worse 

when there was no pending case. As a recent example, Shaan 

received a text message from Samantha the week of trial when 

he was trying to take Lily to the lake. According to Shaan, 

Samantha said that “she has a hundred percent custody and 

she can dictate what I can and can’t do with Lily.”

(d) No Abuse of Discretion

In this case, Samantha was awarded the temporary care, 

custody, and control of Lily pursuant to the temporary order 

entered on August 8, 2016. Samantha claims that the court’s 

final decision awarding custody to Shaan “wholly failed to 

recognize that Samantha had been the primary caregiver for 

[Lily] for her entire life” and that Shaan “had not cared for 

[Lily] overnight since August 2015.” Brief for appellant at 11. 

She contends that Shaan’s relationship with Lily was limited 

to telephone calls and FaceTime and that “[t]hese are not [the] 

proper foundations upon which a grant of custody should be 

supported.” Id. Samantha testified, however, that she did not 

worry about Shaan as a parent “except for a concern about 

him drinking, but I feel like he could do it.” (There was no 

evidence to support that Shaan had a “drinking” problem.) 
- 531 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

Samantha testified that she did not think Shaan “knows what it 

takes because he hasn’t been around [Lily]. He doesn’t know 

her habits and every little tiny thing like I do.” However, 

Samantha also testified she had no reason to believe Shaan 

could not properly care for Lily.

Thus, Samantha’s primary argument is that Shaan should 

not have been awarded custody due to his lack of parenting 

time with Lily since August 2015, when she and Lily returned 

to Nebraska. However, Samantha was the main reason Shaan 

had been unable to have parenting time with Lily during that 

period of time. A parent cannot take a child across an ocean 

away from the other parent, deny that parent’s every request to 

have parenting time with the child, and then claim priority to 

custody because the other parent had not spent sufficient time 

with the child. The evidence fully supports the district court’s 

finding that Samantha intentionally “thwarted” Shaan’s efforts 

to have parenting time with Lily. Given Shaan’s active duty 

status in the military, and his need to coordinate parenting time 

to include his son, it was critical for Samantha to cooperate 

as best possible to promote parenting time between Lily and 

Shaan. It is in Lily’s best interests to maintain and develop 

relationships with both her parents. However, rather than putting Lily’s best interests first and foremost, Samantha did the 

opposite. She intentionally left England with Lily knowing 

Shaan was obligated to stay given his job with the Air Force. 

And then when Shaan attempted to arrange times for him to 

bring Lily back to England with him, Samantha refused to 

allow it for the various reasons set forth earlier. Further, when 

Shaan was stateside and sought cooperation with Samantha to 

spend parenting time with Lily in Virginia with his extended 

family, Samantha turned down the airplane tickets Shaan was 

willing to buy for her and Lily, and instead asked for money 

to drive there. After receiving $500, Samantha canceled the 

trip the day before she and Lily were scheduled to leave for 

Virginia, claiming it was a work issue. Within days, she filed 

for divorce.
- 532 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

The same pattern of parenting time interference followed by 

excuses occurred again when Shaan was in Omaha in March 

2017, and again at the time of trial in July. Even when parenting time was ordered by the district court in March, Samantha 

failed to comply. Again, there were excuses. And when Shaan 

sought parenting time while in Omaha for an extended period 

preceding trial, Samantha denied his requests, claiming she did 

not want to disrupt Lily’s daycare schedule. She also testified 

that while Shaan asked for overnights, “he knows that I’m 

not comfortable with overnights.” Shaan was in Omaha for a 

week before Samantha finally permitted 4 hours of parenting 

time, and Samantha dictated what Shaan could and could not 

do with Lily that day. According to Shaan, she told him “she 

has a hundred percent custody and she can dictate what I can 

and can’t do with Lily.” The evidence was clear that Samantha 

would not foster a healthy parent-child relationship between 

Shaan and Lily.

On the other hand, Shaan testified that if he was granted 

custody, he would “100 percent” ensure that Samantha received 

regular and frequent access to Lily through parenting time and 

FaceTime. Shaan also talked about a program called “Our 

Family Wizard,” stating that it is

used in other courts in different states where all communications would go through this website with both parties 

and it would also include the visitation calendars, school 

schedules, medical documents, 100 percent of everything 

with . . . all the child’s information. That way either of 

us can look at that information. Also, if we have to go 

back to court another time, all communications, all documents, would be there for the attorneys and for the judge 

to look at.

Shaan said that the program is at no cost to the families wanting 

to use it and that he believed it “would be a great tool to help 

both of us coparent.” The evidence demonstrated that Shaan 

knew it was important to promote Lily’s ongoing relationship 

with her mother and to help Samantha coparent with him.
- 533 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

[7] While the promotion and facilitation of a relationship by 

one parent with the other parent is a factor that may be considered when awarding custody, it is not the only factor, nor is 

it a completely determinative factor. See Maska v. Maska, 274 

Neb. 629, 742 N.W.2d 492 (2007) (both parties tried to cut 

each other off from children and both parties had anger and 

resentment issues, but neither parent was unfit, and father promoted best interests of children). Also, “The fact that one parent might interfere with the other’s relationship with the child 

is a factor the trial court may consider in granting custody, but 

it is not a determinative factor.” Kamal v. Imroz, 277 Neb. 116, 

122, 759 N.W.2d 914, 918 (2009).

While the facts of the present case suggest there should be 

circumstances in which a parent’s interference with a child’s 

relationship with the other parent is so substantial that it could 

by itself be a determinative factor, we are guided by the case 

law set forth above. Therefore, like the district court, we also 

consider other custody factors as applied to the evidence in 

this case, to determine whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding legal and physical custody of Lily solely 

to Shaan.

In addition to finding that Samantha “thwarted” Shaan’s 

efforts to maintain contact with Lily and that Samantha was 

the “least likely” parent to encourage a relationship between 

Lily and Shaan, the district court also had concerns about 

Samantha’s lack of time spent with her other children, her 

dishonesty, her failure to maintain a stable home and lifestyle, 

her failure to pay child support, and her poor decisions (noting 

specifically that it was inappropriate for Lily to be living in 

a home with Samantha’s boyfriend while Samantha was still 

married to Shaan). The court also believed there were “morality issues associated with [Samantha’s] conduct”; this could 

encompass a number of matters raised by the evidence, and it 

was certainly appropriate for the district court to consider matters of moral fitness. The evidence supports the court’s findings 

as to these various factors.
- 534 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

Although Samantha takes issue with some of the court’s 

findings, we reiterate the standard set forth earlier. In child 

custody cases, where the credible evidence is in conflict on 

a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers, and 

may give weight to, the fact that the trial judge heard and 

observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts 

rather than another. Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98, 858 N.W.2d 

865 (2015).

[8] The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the parties’ agreement on joint legal custody. A court must 

determine that joint custody (legal or physical) is in a minor 

child’s best interests regardless of any parental agreement or 

consent. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(3) (Reissue 2016). The 

district court rejected joint legal custody in this case because 

the “parties do not communicate” and Samantha “has done 

whatever she can to thwart any type of meaningful and appropriate contact” between Lily and Shaan. We agree with the 

district court that joint legal custody was not feasible given 

the evidence in this case. We also conclude the district court 

did not abuse its discretion by awarding Shaan the legal and 

physical custody of Lily.

2. Removal From Nebraska

to Arizona

Samantha claims the district court abused its discretion by 

granting Shaan permission to remove Lily from Nebraska to 

live with him in Arizona. The July 26, 2017, decree states:

[Shaan] has a legitimate reason to leave the State of 

Nebraska with [Lily]. He has been in the Air Force for 

fourteen years and has only six years remaining for retirement. Further, it is in the best interests of [Lily] that she 

resides with [Shaan] as he has appropriate motives, [she] 

will have a better quality of life, and it is in [her] best 

interests both emotionally and physically to reside permanently with him in Arizona.

[9] Samantha argues that the district court failed to consider 

and apply the factors set forth in Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 
- 535 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999). In Farnsworth, the 

Nebraska Supreme Court stated:

To prevail on a motion to remove a minor child, 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. . . . Of course, whether a 

proposed move is in the best interests of the child is the 

paramount consideration.

257 Neb. at 249, 597 N.W.2d at 598.

Therefore, we will first consider whether Shaan had a legitimate reason for his request to move Lily from Nebraska to 

Arizona. We will then consider whether the district court 

abused its discretion by concluding it was in Lily’s best interests to allow the move to Arizona. The paramount consideration is whether the proposed move is in Lily’s best interests. 

See id.

(a) Legitimate Reason 

to Leave State

Samantha does not challenge the district court’s finding that 

Shaan had a legitimate basis for seeking removal due to his 

career in the Air Force. There is no question that Shaan was 

asking to move Lily to Arizona because of his military orders 

and his current active duty assignment there. Shaan had tried 

to get orders to an Air Force base in Nebraska, but it was not 

an available option. The evidence supports that Shaan had a 

legitimate basis for seeking removal.

(b) Child’s Best Interests

[10] In determining whether removal to another jurisdiction is in the child’s best interests, the trial 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 a move will have on contact between the child and the 
- 536 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

noncustodial parent, when viewed in the light of reasonable 

visitation. McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 264 Neb. 232, 647 

N.W.2d 577 (2002). See, also, Farnsworth, supra.

(i) Each Parent’s Motives

The first consideration is each parent’s motives for seeking or opposing the move. Samantha claims that although the 

district court noted Shaan’s career as the motive for seeking 

removal, the court did not address her motive for opposing 

removal. Samantha states, however, that because her “motive 

to oppose removal was only to maintain custody of [Lily], this 

prong neither weighs in support or against removal.” Brief 

for appellant at 14. We agree this is not a particularly influential consideration; we nevertheless note that both parties 

had reasonable and good faith motives to support or oppose 

the move.

(ii) Quality of Life

[11,12] For the second consideration, the Supreme Court 

has set forth a number of factors to assist trial courts in assessing whether the proposed move will enhance the quality of 

life for the child and the custodial parent. See Farnsworth v. 

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

to be considered include: (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 

custodial 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 move would antagonize hostilities between the 

two parents; 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. Id. This list should not be misconstrued as setting out 
- 537 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

a hierarchy of factors. Id. Depending on the circumstances of 

a particular case, any one factor or combination of factors may 

be variously weighted. Id.

Since considerable evidence pertinent to these best interests 

and quality of life factors has already been set forth in our discussion on custody, we will not separately discuss each factor 

and repeat that evidence here. However, we provide some additional evidence related to Shaan’s living situation in Arizona to 

provide further context for the court’s determination that Lily’s 

moving to Arizona to live with Shaan would enhance her quality of life.

Shaan testified that he rented a 1,500-square-foot, threebedroom home in Arizona, where Lily would have her own 

bedroom and bathroom. He said the military base in Arizona 

is a “training base and education base,” so “there’s no deployments or temporary assignments.” Shaan would be there the 

entire time. Shaan has been in the Air Force for a little over 14 

years, working the same job as a jet engine mechanic, and has 

about 6 years until retirement. Shaan testified that he talked 

with his “chain of command” and his “supervision” and that 

his schedule “would 100 percent rotate around [Lily] and her 

needs.” Also, Shaan’s current plan following retirement is to 

stay in Arizona. He said that there are “a lot of [job] openings 

at the airport” and that the military base also hires civilians 

back after retirement “into the shops and the flight lines on 

base” if they have proper degrees and certifications.

According to Shaan, Lily would go to preschool at a child 

development center on the military base, which center is about 

15 minutes from Shaan’s home. Shaan said it “won for 2016 

the number one child development center in the Air Force.” 

He testified that there are two teachers in each room with no 

more than 15 or 16 students and that one teacher would either 

have a teaching degree or be working on one. When Lily starts 

elementary school, there is a school “right around the corner” 

from Shaan’s house, which he estimated was a 3- to 5-minute 

drive. Shaan met with the school’s principal and teachers. 
- 538 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

Shaan testified that Lily’s daycare in Omaha had a high turnover rate with its employees. However, Samantha testified that 

“the daycare that [Lily’s] in now is probably better because it 

has cameras so we can watch her or check up on her throughout the day.”

As for extended family, Shaan testified that his father was 

moving to Arizona from India at the end of July and that 

his mother would arrive later to “come live with me to help 

take care of Lily.” His mother was living in Connecticut, but 

“[s]he’s willing to uproot everything to help me and Lily out.” 

In Omaha, Lily had been living with Samantha’s extended family half the time, including Samantha’s mother and Samantha’s 

teenage brother (who was alleged to have engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with Samantha’s older daughter). 

Lily had also been living half the time with Samantha’s boyfriend at his apartment. Shaan testified that he was concerned 

about the possibility of “more physical violence” between 

Samantha and her boyfriend. He believed “that’s just something that [Samantha] learned in her personal home life.” 

Shaan explained that Samantha’s mother “has been so mad 

that she’s broken two televisions and put[] a bar through their 

back glass sliding door.” From what Samantha had told him 

and what he had seen firsthand, Shaan said that “it’s not a 

great relationship” between Samantha and her mother. Shaan 

added, “[T]hey’re always yelling, always screaming.” They 

might have “good times” for 15 or 20 minutes in a day, he 

said, “But the rest of it is just arguing amongst everybody in 

that household, her little brother, her mother, her father, and 

her grandmother.”

At trial, Samantha testified she did not think it would be 

in Lily’s best interests to move to Arizona because “I’ve 

been her primary caregiver for the last two years, she doesn’t 

have family out there. She has family here.” Samantha added, 

“I feel like if she goes to Arizona she doesn’t have anybody except for, like, his military buddies, and . . . I think 

she’d be better staying here with her actual blood family.” 
- 539 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

On appeal, she reiterates that she has been Lily’s primary 

caregiver and that “Samantha’s family is the only family 

[Lily] has really ever known.” Brief for appellant at 15. She 

claims that Lily has only had interaction with Shaan’s family 

through FaceTime and that Lily does not have a relationship with Shaan’s parents to the same degree she has with 

Samantha’s family. However, as we already discussed, when 

Shaan arranged for Samantha and Lily to meet him in Virginia 

in June 2016 when some of his family would be present, 

Samantha canceled the trip. This obviously hindered Lily’s 

ability to become more familiar with extended family on her 

paternal side. Further, Shaan testified that the last time his 

mother saw Lily was in England in 2014 and that there was 

“a big strain between my mother and Samantha.” Shaan said 

that Samantha would stay in her room and would not talk 

to his mother: “[Samantha] would keep Lily locked in her 

room with her. She’d come downstairs and get food and go 

back upstairs.” Therefore, with regard to extended family, 

it is true that Lily would be more familiar with Samantha’s 

extended family in Omaha due to the circumstances we have 

described. However, given her young age, the lack of opportunity to become more familiar with extended family on her 

paternal side cannot be viewed as a factor weighing against 

removal, especially in light of her paternal grandparents’ 

move to Arizona. Having less time with extended family on 

her maternal side, however, can be viewed as a factor weighing against removal.

Samantha argues that “more factors weighed against removal 

than for removal.” Brief for appellant at 21. Samantha claims 

that Lily’s emotional, physical, and developmental needs are 

best met by her, since she has been the primary caregiver, and 

that Shaan failed to prove the move to Arizona “would significantly improve” Lily’s living conditions. Brief for appellant 

at 17 (emphasis omitted). Samantha further argues that Shaan 

failed to prove Lily’s educational opportunities would be better in Arizona than in Nebraska. Samantha also contends that 
- 540 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

she has “a much stronger” relationship with Lily and that her 

“hesitation in permitting Shaan to care for [Lily] overnight 

or through the weekend” should not be viewed as obstructing parenting time, but was “merely an effort by Samantha to 

keep [Lily] in the safest environment possible.” Id. at 19-20. 

Samantha claims that her stronger relationship with Lily, plus 

Lily’s relationships with extended family in Nebraska, weighed 

against removal. Further, Samantha argues that allowing Shaan 

to remove Lily to Arizona “will only make matters worse,” 

because the “great distance the court put between [Lily] and 

her primary caregiver is only going to cause more hostility,” 

and therefore the likelihood of increased hostilities between the 

parents weighs against removal. Id. at 21.

We are mindful that Samantha’s role as the primary caregiver of Lily while residing in Nebraska is of consequence and 

that Lily’s ties to Samantha, the community, and other family members weigh against removal. However, as described 

above, there were also factors favoring removal. And regardless of the number of factors weighing one way or the other, 

it bears repeating that the quality of life factors should not 

be misconstrued as setting out a hierarchy of factors. See 

Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 

(1999). Depending on the circumstances of a particular case, 

any one factor or combination of factors may be variously 

weighted. Id. Thus, the weight of one or two highly significant 

factors in a particular case may outweigh multiple other factors of less significance, depending on the facts of the case. 

Further, the list of criteria is not meant to be exhaustive, nor 

will every factor be present in each case. See id. However, 

these considerations and factors serve as appropriate guideposts to trial courts in determining what is in the child’s best 

interests. Id.

In our de novo review of the evidence related to the quality 

of life factors, the evidence supports the district court’s finding that Lily would “have a better quality of life” if she lived 

with Shaan in Arizona.
- 541 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

(iii) Impact on Noncustodial 

Parent’s Visitation

[13] Consideration of the impact of removal of children 

to another jurisdiction on the noncustodial parent’s visitation “focuses on the ability of the noncustodial parent to 

maintain a meaningful parent-child relationship.” Farnsworth, 

257 Neb. at 251, 597 N.W.2d at 599. And “[w]hen looking 

at this consideration, courts typically view it in the light of 

the potential to establish and maintain a reasonable visitation 

schedule.” Id.

The district court adopted the mediated parenting plan 

with a few revisions, including the provision that Samantha 

receive up to 6 weeks of parenting time with Lily each summer. Samantha was also allowed to “Skype” with Lily three 

times per week at “reasonable hours,” and various holidays 

and school breaks were to be alternated between the parties. 

Samantha was responsible for arranging transportation for 

her parenting time; however, Shaan was ordered to reimburse 

one-half of Lily’s cost for two trips to Omaha and back to 

Arizona for Samantha’s parenting time. Shaan testified that 

at the time of trial, a “last minute one-way flight” between 

Phoenix and Omaha was $130. Samantha argues that given 

her limited resources, “this effectively eliminates [her] ability to see [Lily].” Brief for appellant at 22. She contends, 

therefore, that this would reduce her “visitation with [Lily] 

to FaceTime.” Id. She acknowledges this was the same situation Shaan had previously, but now that Shaan was living 

in the United States, “the court had the opportunity to craft 

a means of custody and visitation that would greatly benefit 

both parents.” Id. She suggests that if the court had refused 

removal (and presumably granted her custody), the “impact 

on visitation between [Lily] and Shaan still would have 

improved.” Id. at 22-23. She claims that since Shaan now 

lives closer, he could fly to Omaha “whenever a seat is open 

on an Air Force plane.” Id. at 23. She admits that it would 

have still been difficult for Shaan to have parenting time 
- 542 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

with Lily from Arizona, but argues “it would have been much 

easier when compared to the burden that has been placed on 

Samantha.” Id.

There is no question that any time substantial distance 

exists between the parents’ residences, there will be a greater 

burden placed on the noncustodial parent when exercising 

parenting time, including the increased cost of transportation. In order to address such costs in this case, the district 

court gave Samantha a slight break on child support by using 

an hourly rate of $9 per hour for Samantha’s income instead 

of the $12 per hour she would be earning at her new job. 

Additionally, as noted, the court ordered Shaan to pay certain 

transportation costs as well. Although certainly not ideal, the 

parenting plan provides Samantha with reasonable parenting time. The distance and costs will be a burden, but not 

a barrier, to Samantha’s ability to maintain her relationship 

with Lily.

(c) Summary

The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that 

Shaan had a legitimate basis for seeking removal of Lily from 

Nebraska to Arizona due to his military orders that assigned 

him there. Further, in reviewing the best interests considerations set forth in Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 

597 N.W.2d 592 (1999), as applied to the evidence in this 

case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion 

by granting Shaan’s request to remove Lily from Nebraska 

to Arizona.

3. Child Support

Samantha assigns as error that the district court abused its 

discretion by ordering her to pay child support. She acknowledges that a “custodial parent is entitled to child support.” 

Brief for appellant at 23. She argues only that “[i]t was an 

abuse of discretion for the court to order [her to] pay child 

support to Shaan, because the court abused its discretion in 
- 543 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

26 Nebraska Appellate Reports

KASHYAP v. KASHYAP

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 511

granting sole physical custody to Shaan, and permitting Shaan 

to remove [Lily] from the jurisdiction.” Id. She makes no argument related to the income or deductions used in calculating 

child support; rather, she argues only that she should not have 

been ordered to pay child support because, essentially, she 

should have been awarded custody. We have already found 

no abuse of discretion by the district court in awarding Shaan 

custody of Lily; therefore, we need not address this assigned 

error further.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court’s 

July 26, 2017, decree of dissolution.

Affirmed.