- 121 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

HOLLOMON v. TAYLOR

Cite as 303 Neb. 121

Jami Hollomon, appellant, 

Alex Taylor, appelle

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed May 10, 2019. No. S-18-959.

1. Child Custody: States: Judgments. Whether a child custody determination issued by a court of another state may be registered in Nebraska 

presents a question of law.

2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. On a question of law, an appellate court 

is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination 

reached by the court below.

3. Child Custody: Jurisdiction: Judgments. When the registration procedure of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1252 (Reissue 2016) has been followed 

and the registration is either not contested or, after a hearing none of the 

grounds under § 43-1252(d) have been established, the registering court 

shall confirm the registered order.

4. Child Custody: Jurisdiction. Proceedings to register a child custody 

determination from a foreign jurisdiction under the Uniform Child 

Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, with or without a simultaneous request for enforcement, are generally ministerial, and concerns 

about whether the registering court may properly exercise jurisdiction 

over a subsequent child custody proceeding are not yet implicated.

Appeal from the District Court for Seward County: James C. 

Stecker, Judge. Reversed and remanded with direction

Nicholas R. Glasz for appellant.

Michael S. Kennedy, of Kennedy Law Firm, P.C., L.L.O., 

for appellee.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

06/21/2019 09:08 AM CDT
- 122 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

HOLLOMON v. TAYLOR

Cite as 303 Neb. 121

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy

Papik, and Freudenberg, J

Stacy, 

Jami Hollomon and Alex Taylor are the unmarried parents of a minor child. After the State of Texas entered an 

order adjudicating parentage and establishing a parenting plan, 

Hollomon attempted to register the Texas order in Nebraska. 

The district court for Seward County denied the request 

after concluding it “should decline jurisdiction” under the 

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act 

(UCCJEA).1 Hollomon appeals, and we reverse the order and 

remand the cause with directions to register and confirm the 

Texas order.

FACTS

Hollomon and Taylor had a child together in 2016. On 

June 11, 2018, the district court for Van Zandt County, 

Texas, entered an “Order Adjudicating Parentage” in case 

No. FM16-00080. In addition to establishing paternity of the 

minor child, the order approved the parties’ mediated parenting plan and addressed issues of custody, support, and parenting time.

The Texas order identified a “Seward, NE” address for 

Hollomon and identified a Texas address for Taylor. The order 

gave Holloman the “exclusive right to designate the primary 

residence of [the child] without regard to geographic location 

of [Taylor].” Taylor was ordered to maintain health insurance 

for the child and to pay monthly child support. The order 

also set out a “Possession Order” which designated the parties’ parenting time. As relevant to the issues on appeal, the 

order established two different possession schedules for the 

1 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1226 to 43-1266 (Reissue 2016 & Cum. Supp. 

2018).
- 123 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

HOLLOMON v. TAYLOR

Cite as 303 Neb. 121

child: one schedule for “Parents Who Reside 100 Miles or 

Less Apart,” and another for “Parents Who Reside More Than 

100 Miles Apart.” Under the provisions applicable to parents 

residing more than 100 miles apart, Hollomon was given “a 

superior right of possession” of the child. It does not appear 

that any provision of the Texas order expressly required either 

Hollomon or Taylor to reside in Texas.

On August 15, 2018, about 2 months after the Texas order 

was issued, Hollomon sought to register the order in the 

district court for Seward County pursuant to § 43-1252. She 

filed a certified copy of the Texas order, accompanied by her 

affidavit requesting registration of the order in Nebraska. She 

did not simultaneously request to enforce or modify the Texas 

order. Hollomon’s affidavit averred, among other things, that 

(1) she had been awarded custody of the minor child by the 

Texas order; (2) to the best of her knowledge and belief, the 

Texas order had not been modified; (3) she moved to Seward 

in November 2017 and intended to make Nebraska her permanent home; and (4) she was currently living with the child 

at an “undisclosed residence in Seward County, Nebraska.” 

Although the affidavit did not explain why, Hollomon averred 

that the health, safety, or liberty of Hollomon or the child 

would be jeopardized by disclosure of her identifying information, and she asked that the information be sealed pursuant 

to § 43-1246(e).

The next day, pursuant to § 43-1252(c), the clerk of the 

district court for Seward County sent notice to both Taylor 

and the Texas court that a “child custody determination issued 

by the court of Van Zandt County, Texas” in “Cause Number 

FM: 16-00080” had been filed in the district court for Seward 

County on August 15. The notice further stated:

(a) a registered determination is enforceable as of the 

date of the registration in the same manner as a determination issued by a court of this state;
- 124 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

HOLLOMON v. TAYLOR

Cite as 303 Neb. 121

(b) a hearing to contest the validity of the registered 

determination shall be requested within twenty days after 

service of notice; and

(c) failure to contest the registration will result in confirmation of the child custody determination and preclude 

further contest of that determination with respect to any 

matter that could have been asserted.

The notice was personally served on Taylor August 23, 

2018. Thereafter, Taylor entered a voluntary appearance and 

requested a hearing on registration of the Texas order. His 

motion stated he was resisting registration, because the Texas 

order “fails to comply with the registration requirements of 

Nebraska” and because “Texas still has jurisdiction.”

After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court 

made the following journal entry on October 1, 2018, which 

was signed and file stamped:

The matter comes on for hearing to Register Foreign 

Judgment. Nicholas Glasz, attorney, appears with 

[Hollomon]. Mike Kennedy, attorney, appears with 

[Taylor]. Statements of counsel are made. Evidence is 

adduced. The court finds that pursuant to §43-1245, this 

court should decline jurisdiction due to the conduct of 

the mother, . . . Hollomon. The mother removed the child 

from the geographic limits of the Texas order without 

permission. The mother is currently subject to a contempt 

order in Texas which is currently being monitored by the 

Texas court that issued the order seeking to be registered. 

The Texas court has continuing jurisdiction over the matter. The request for registration is denied.

Hollomon timely appealed, and we moved the case to our 

docket on our own motion.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Hollomon assigns, restated and consolidated, that the district court erred in denying registration of a foreign child 
- 125 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

HOLLOMON v. TAYLOR

Cite as 303 Neb. 121

custody determination based on an unrelated foreign contempt order and an erroneous finding that Hollomon removed 

the minor child from the geographic limits of Texas without permission.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] Whether a child custody determination issued by a 

court of another state may be registered in Nebraska presents 

a question of law.2 On a question of law, an appellate court is 

obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the court below.3

ANALYSIS

Both parties’ briefing, and the order of the district court 

denying registration, generally frame the issue as whether 

Nebraska has jurisdiction over a “child custody proceeding” 

involving the parties’ child under the UCCJEA. But on this 

record, the only question presented is whether the Texas order 

may be registered in Nebraska.

The statute governing registration of child custody determinations from another state is § 43-1252, which provides:

(a) A child custody determination issued by a court of 

another state may be registered in this state, with or without a simultaneous request for enforcement, by sending to 

the district court in this state:

(1) a letter or other document requesting registration;

(2) two copies, including one certified copy, of the 

determination sought to be registered, and a statement 

under penalty of perjury that to the best of the knowledge 

and belief of the person seeking registration the order has 

not been modified; and

2 See In re Sophia G.L., 229 Ill. 2d 143, 890 N.E.2d 470, 321 Ill. Dec. 748 

(2008).

3 Friedman v. Friedman, 290 Neb. 973, 863 N.W.2d 153 (2015).
- 126 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

HOLLOMON v. TAYLOR

Cite as 303 Neb. 121

(3) except as otherwise provided in section 43-1246, 

the name and address of the person seeking registration 

and any parent or person acting as a parent who has been 

awarded custody or visitation in the child custody determination sought to be registered.

(b) On receipt of the documents required by subsection 

(a) of this section, the registering court shall:

(1) cause the determination to be filed as a foreign 

judgment, together with one copy of any accompanying 

documents and information, regardless of their form; 

and

(2) serve notice upon the persons named pursuant to 

subdivision (a)(3) of this section and provide them with 

an opportunity to contest the registration in accordance 

with this section.

(c) The notice required by subdivision (b)(2) of this 

section shall state that:

(1) a registered determination is enforceable as of the 

date of the registration in the same manner as a determination issued by a court of this state;

(2) a hearing to contest the validity of the registered 

determination shall be requested within twenty days after 

service of notice; and

(3) failure to contest the registration will result in confirmation of the child custody determination and preclude 

further contest of that determination with respect to any 

matter that could have been asserted.

(d) A person seeking to contest the validity of a registered order shall request a hearing within twenty days 

after service of the notice. At that hearing, the court shall 

confirm the registered order unless the person contesting 

registration establishes that:

(1) the issuing court did not have jurisdiction under 

sections 43-1238 to 43-1247;
- 127 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

HOLLOMON v. TAYLOR

Cite as 303 Neb. 121

(2) the child custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court 

having jurisdiction to do so under such sections; or

(3) the person contesting registration was entitled to 

notice, but notice was not given in accordance with the 

standards of section 43-1233, in the proceedings before 

the court that issued the order for which registration is 

sought.

(e) If a timely request for a hearing to contest the 

validity of the registration is not made, the registration is 

confirmed as a matter of law and the person requesting 

registration and all persons served shall be notified of 

the confirmation.

(f) Confirmation of a registered order, whether by 

operation of law or after notice and hearing, precludes 

further contest of the order with respect to any matter that 

could have been asserted at the time of registration.

[3] Taylor does not contend that Hollomon failed to comply 

with the procedural requirements of the registration statute, nor 

has he contested the registration on any of the grounds set out 

in § 43-1252(d). When the registration procedure of § 43-1252 

has been followed and the registration is either not contested 

or, after a hearing none of the grounds under § 43-1252(d) 

have been established, the registering court shall confirm the 

registered order.4 Thus, because Taylor requested a hearing but 

did not establish any of the grounds that would preclude confirmation of the registered order under § 43-1252(d), the district 

court for Seward County was required, as a matter of law, to 

confirm the registered order.

[4] To the extent the parties and the district court went 

beyond the ministerial issue of registration and analyzed 

whether the district court for Seward County has jurisdiction 

4 § 43-1252.
- 128 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

HOLLOMON v. TAYLOR

Cite as 303 Neb. 121

to make or modify a child custody determination under 

§§ 43-1238 to 43-1245, their analysis was premature. 

Proceedings to register a child custody determination from 

a foreign jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, with or without a 

simultaneous request for enforcement, are generally ministerial, and concerns about whether the registering court may 

properly exercise jurisdiction over a subsequent child custody 

proceeding are not yet implicated.

Here, no Nebraska court has yet been asked to make, or to 

modify, a child custody determination. Hollomon’s reason for 

seeking to register the Texas order in Nebraska was not articulated in her affidavit, and the record contains no simultaneous 

request for enforcement or modification. But even assuming 

Hollomon seeks to register the Texas order so she can subsequently seek to enforce it, a proceeding seeking only to enforce 

a previously entered custody order is not a child custody 

proceeding as defined under the UCCJEA.5 As such, on this 

record, concerns about whether the district court for Seward 

County may exercise jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding are not yet implicated.6

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is 

reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to confirm 

the registered order.

Reversed and remanded with direct

5 See § 43-1227(4) (“[c]hild custody proceeding . . . does not include 

a proceeding involving . . . enforcement under sections 43-1248 to 

43-1264”).

6 See, e.g., Harter v. Szykowny, 2014 Ark. App. 701, 451 S.W.3d 215 

(2014); Berwick v. Wagner, 336 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. App. 2011); In re Sophia 

G.L., supra note 2; Jamil v. Jahan, 280 Mich. App. 92, 760 N.W.2d 266 

(2008); Prickett v. Prickett, 167 P.3d 661 (Wyo. 2007).