- 889 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

Brandon G. Speers, appellant

Natalie Johns, now know

Natalie Daniel, appelle

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed February 12, 2019. No. A-17-1189.

1. Child Custody: Appeal and Error. Child custody determinations are 

matters initially entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and 

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

will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.

2. 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.

3. Child Custody: Intent. When a parent sharing joint legal and physical custody seeks to modify custody and relocate, that parent must first 

prove a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of a 

child by evidence of a legitimate reason to leave the state, together with 

an expressed intention to do so.

4. Modification of Decree: Child Custody: Proof: Intent. Proving an 

intent to leave the state does not necessitate that physical custody be 

modified, but the intent to move illustrates the likelihood that there is 

a need for considering some sort of modification that would reflect the 

new circumstances.

5. Child Custody: Proof: Intent. Once the party seeking modification 

has met the threshold burden of showing an expressed intention to 

leave the state, the separate analyses of whether custody should be 

modified and whether removal should be permitted necessarily become 

intertwined.

6. Child Custody. A court evaluates whether the best interests of the child 

are furthered by the relocating parent’s obtaining sole physical custody 

and moving the child out of state.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

02/12/2019 08:08 AM CST
- 890 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

7. ____. As a practical matter, the existence of a joint physical custody 

relationship is likely to make it more difficult for the relocating parent 

to meet the burden associated with relocation.

8. Modification of Decree. Changes in circumstances which were in the 

contemplation of the parties at the time the prior decree or order was 

entered do not qualify as material changes in circumstances for purposes 

of modifying a decree.

9. Modification of Decree: Child Custody. If the alleged reason for a custodial parent to leave a state was contemplated at the time of the entry of 

the prior order, such reason to leave cannot be considered legitimate.

10. Child Custody. A move to reside with a custodial parent’s new spouse 

who is employed and resides in another state may constitute a legitimate 

reason for removal.

11. Child Custody: Visitation. There are three broad considerations ordinarily to be employed in determining whether removal to another 

jurisdiction is in a child’s best interests: (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 arrangements.

12. 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.

13. ____. 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.

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

of a child to another jurisdiction on the contact between a child and 

the noncustodial parent, when viewed in light of reasonable visitation 

arrangements, focuses on the ability of the court to fashion a reasonable 

visitation schedule that will allow the noncustodial parent to maintain a 

meaningful parent-child relationship.

15. ____: ____. Generally, a reasonable visitation schedule is one that 

provides a satisfactory basis for preserving and fostering a child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent, which necessitates considering 

the frequency and total number of days of visitation and the distance 

traveled and expense incurred.
- 891 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

16. ____: ____. Indications of a custodial parent’s willingness to comply 

with a modified visitation schedule have a place in analyzing the reasonableness of a visitation schedule.

Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Sus

I. Strong, Judge. Affir

Eddy M. Rodell for appellant.

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

Moore, Chief Judge, and Bishop and Arterburn, Judg

Arterburn, Judg

I. INTRODUCTION

Brandon G. Speers appeals from an order of modification 

entered in the district court for Lancaster County. On appeal, 

he assigns as error the district court’s decision to modify the 

prior order granting the parties joint physical custody by granting sole physical custody of the minor child to Natalie Johns, 

now known as Natalie Daniel, and granting Natalie’s request 

to remove the minor child to the State of Iowa. He argues that 

Natalie failed to prove that a material change of circumstances 

existed since the entry of the prior order. He further argues that 

Natalie did not have a legitimate reason to remove their child 

from the state and that removal is not in her best interests. For 

the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

Brandon and Natalie are the biological parents of Paisley S., 

a daughter born out of wedlock in December 2012. Following 

a brief hearing on August 23, 2016, at which both parties and 

no other witnesses testified, the court approved a stipulated 

paternity order and parenting plan. Pursuant to the parties’ 

joint stipulation and parenting plan, they shared joint legal and 

physical custody of Paisley. Although Paisley’s primary residence was Natalie’s home, the parties shared physical placement of Paisley on an “8-6 basis.” This meant that Natalie had 
- 892 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

physical placement and parenting time with Paisley for 8 days 

during every 14-day period while Brandon had physical placement and parenting time for the remaining 6 days, an arrangement the parties had followed since separating in 2014. During 

the summer, the parties agreed to alternate care of Paisley on 

a “week on - week off” basis. The parties agreed to an upward 

deviation in child support whereby Brandon would pay to 

Natalie $450 per month in exchange for not sharing in a full 

range of Paisley’s expenses. The division of holidays and other 

financial obligations were also set forth in detail in the joint 

stipulation and parenting plan.

Natalie filed a complaint to modify on June 15, 2017. In 

her complaint, Natalie stated that a material change warranted 

modifying the original decree and parenting plan because she 

had married a man who lived in Glidden, Iowa. She contended 

modification was in Paisley’s best interests and requested that 

she be granted primary physical custody and the ability to 

remove Paisley to live in Glidden. A trial on Natalie’s complaint was held on November 1.

At trial, Natalie testified in her own behalf and her husband 

testified on her behalf, while Brandon testified in his own 

behalf and his neighbor-landlord and his sister testified on his 

behalf. At the time of trial, Paisley was enrolled in preschool in 

Waverly, Nebraska, and during her parenting time with Natalie, 

lived in a two-bedroom apartment in Lincoln, Nebraska. Natalie 

married Gregory Daniel in May 2017. Gregory lives outside 

of Glidden, which is approximately 168 miles from Waverly, 

where Brandon lives. Gregory works as a diesel mechanic for a 

tractor company and anticipated taking over his family’s 1,500-

acre farm near Glidden within the year following trial due to 

his father’s impending retirement. At the time of the hearing, 

Natalie was pregnant and was due to give birth on Christmas 

Eve 2017. When Natalie and Gregory found out she was pregnant, they married in May 2017.

Natalie testified that allowing her to remove Paisley to 

Glidden would be beneficial, because Natalie would no 
- 893 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

longer need to work and would have more time with Paisley. 

Moreover, instead of living in a two-bedroom apartment, they 

would be living on an acreage in a 2,800-square-foot house. 

Gregory confirmed that he would support Natalie being a stayat-home mother and that he had sufficient income for them particularly once he took over the farm. Gregory anticipated that 

his income would double once he took over his father’s farming operation. Natalie testified that her and Gregory’s overall 

expenses would be greatly reduced by allowing removal in that 

they would no longer have two households to support and there 

would be no childcare expenses. Natalie noted that throughout 

Paisley’s life, Natalie has been her primary caretaker and provided her primary residence. Natalie has been the primary parent to take Paisley to her medical appointments and has more 

flexibility to miss work when Paisley is ill. Natalie has worked 

as a hair stylist.

Natalie acknowledged that her family and Brandon’s family all live in Nebraska and see Paisley on a regular basis. 

She noted, however, that Gregory’s parents live within 8 miles 

of Glidden and that his extended family also lives nearby. 

Paisley would also benefit from slightly smaller class sizes in 

the Glidden schools as compared to the Waverly schools. As 

compared to Natalie’s apartment in Lincoln, Gregory’s home 

in Glidden provides more space for Paisley to play and “run 

around.” Gregory also mentioned having pets, which Paisley 

enjoys playing with. As of the time of trial, Gregory had not 

explored employment opportunities in Nebraska. He testified 

that he could not move due to his current and future work on 

the family farm.

Evidence was produced during trial that showed Natalie and 

Gregory started dating in May 2015. Natalie had considered 

the possibility of marrying Gregory and moving to Glidden 

prior to the court’s order dated August 23, 2016. In particular, 

Natalie sent Brandon a letter stating that Gregory would be 

unable to move to Waverly and that her hope was to marry him 

and start a family with him. At the time the letter was written, 
- 894 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

Natalie said the idea of marriage was a possibility that was 

in her mind but was not yet a firm plan. She further clarified 

that Gregory had not at that time asked her to marry him, and 

she only contemplated moving away from Lancaster County if 

some sort of material change occurred, specifically an engagement to be married. Gregory noted that they did not discuss 

marriage until the spring of 2017.

Natalie acknowledged that Brandon also lives on an acreage outside of Waverly where the parties lived together for a 

period of time. She described Brandon as a “great dad” and 

noted that they communicate well. She testified that if the court 

denied removal, she would remain in Lincoln and would want 

the then-existing paternity order and parenting plan to remain 

in effect.

Brandon also testified about the letter received from Natalie 

prior to the August 2016 settlement. He acknowledged that 

shortly before the letter was written, he was in a long-term dating relationship with a woman who lived in Seward, Nebraska. 

He had told Natalie of the possibility that he might move 

there. However, before the parties reached their settlement 

agreement, he had ended that relationship in part because he 

did not want Paisley to have to move. Brandon understood 

the letter as relaying a conversation Natalie and Gregory 

had regarding Gregory’s inability to move to Nebraska and 

Natalie’s desire to marry him in the future. Later, in January 

2017, Brandon and Natalie discussed her possible move, and 

Brandon said he wanted to stay involved in Paisley’s daily life 

and “was absolutely not okay” with her relocation to Iowa. On 

cross-examination, Brandon acknowledged that neither Natalie 

nor he knew what the future held at the time the letter was 

written and that he understood the letter to be dependent on 

future events.

Brandon testified that he lives in a 1,100-square-foot house 

located on 6 acres outside of Waverly and is employed as a 

diesel mechanic. When Paisley is with Brandon, they often 

do chores related to raising a few calves. For recreation, they 
- 895 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

often play outside and go fishing. On his weekends, Brandon 

always takes Paisley to church. With family nearby, Brandon 

rarely utilizes a babysitter. Brandon testified that his family 

lives near enough to Waverly that they usually get together to 

see Paisley on the weekends he has parenting time. Additionally, 

Brandon noted that Natalie’s family lives near the Waverly 

area as well.

Brandon stated his concerns that there would be no way 

for him to remain an involved parent if Paisley were removed 

to Glidden, some 21⁄2 hours away from Waverly. Accordingly, 

Brandon requested custody of Paisley if Natalie were to move 

to Iowa. Nonetheless, Brandon acknowledged his belief that 

Paisley’s care would not suffer if she relocated to Glidden, 

and he confirmed that Natalie has never tried to keep Paisley 

from him or harm their relationship. Both witnesses called by 

Brandon testified to both parties’ capable and qualified parenting abilities.

While acknowledging that Natalie was a good mother, 

Brandon expressed concerns for Paisley if removal was granted. 

He noted that at times, Paisley can be “a hard one to handle” 

and that Natalie has called him for help to calm Paisley down. 

He noted that Paisley was comfortable with the current living 

arrangement and had friends and extended family in Nebraska. 

If removal was allowed, Brandon would not be able to be 

involved in Paisley’s day-to-day activities but would be relegated to being a “weekend dad.” He believed that it would be 

impossible to maintain the level of relationship he now enjoyed 

with Paisley.

Following trial, the court entered its order on November 9, 

2017. The court granted Natalie’s complaint to modify custody and to remove Paisley to Glidden. Joint legal custody 

was maintained, but Natalie was granted sole physical custody. The court awarded Brandon parenting time on alternating weekends during the school year. In the summer, the court 

established a “2 weeks on and 1 week off” schedule, with 

Brandon having the 2-week periods. Regarding holidays, the 
- 896 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

court’s previous order was modified to award Brandon parenting time every year for the Thanksgiving holiday weekend and 

spring break. Exchanges of Paisley were ordered to take place 

in Shelby, Iowa.

Finally, the court modified the amount of child support to 

be paid by Brandon based on the transition from joint to sole 

physical custody, which included a downward deviation based 

on travel expenses. No separate error was assigned to the 

child support determination outside of Brandon’s claim that no 

modification of parenting time should occur.

Brandon now appeals.

III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Brandon assigns the district court erred in finding that 

a material change of circumstance existed which justified 

modification of the stipulated order of paternity to sole custody, determining that Natalie had a legitimate reason to seek 

removal of Paisley to Iowa, and finding that removal was in 

Paisley’s best interests.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] Child custody determinations are matters initially 

entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and although 

reviewed de novo on the record, the trial court’s determination will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. 

Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98, 858 N.W.2d 865 (2015). 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. Id.

V. ANALYSIS

[3,4] When a parent sharing joint legal and physical custody 

seeks to modify custody and relocate, that parent must first 

prove a material change in circumstances affecting the best 

interests of a child by evidence of a legitimate reason to leave 

the state, together with an expressed intention to do so. Bird v. 
- 897 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

Bird, 22 Neb. App. 334, 853 N.W.2d 16 (2014). Proving such 

an intent does not necessitate that physical custody be modified, but the intent to move illustrates the likelihood that there 

is a need for considering some sort of modification that would 

reflect the new circumstances. Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954, 

621 N.W.2d 70 (2000).

[5-7] Once the party seeking modification has met this 

threshold burden, the separate analyses of whether custody 

should be modified and whether removal should be permitted necessarily become intertwined. Id. The question becomes 

whether the best interests of the child are furthered by the 

relocating parent’s obtaining sole physical custody and moving 

the child out of state. Bird v. Bird, supra. As a practical matter, 

the existence of a joint physical custody relationship is likely 

to make it more difficult for the relocating parent to meet the 

burden associated with relocation. Id.

1. Material Chan

of Circumsta

Brandon argues that Natalie has failed to demonstrate a 

material change of circumstances not contemplated at the time 

the stipulated decree of paternity was entered. In oral argument, counsel for Natalie conceded that the evidence, particularly Natalie’s letter, establishes that Natalie had contemplated 

“in the abstract” the possibility of marrying Gregory prior to 

reaching agreement on the 2016 stipulated order, but that marriage was only a possibility at that time and was not part of 

any firm plan. Natalie notes that Gregory did not ask her to 

marry him until her pregnancy was discovered in the spring 

of 2017.

[8,9] Our analysis of this issue is complicated by the tension between separate lines of cases. On one hand is Brown 

v. Brown, supra, which holds that a parent sharing joint legal 

and physical custody proves a material change of circumstances affecting the best interests of a child by presenting 

evidence of a legitimate reason to leave the state, together 
- 898 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

with an expressed intention to do so. Under this analysis, the 

material change of circumstances is basically subsumed in 

the analysis of whether there is a legitimate reason to leave 

the state and an expressed intent to do so, an issue which 

in this case is fairly clear cut. However, changes in circumstances which were in the contemplation of the parties at the 

time the prior decree or order was entered do not qualify as 

material changes in circumstances for purposes of modifying a decree. Desjardins v. Desjardins, 239 Neb. 878, 479 

N.W.2d 451 (1992); McDonald v. McDonald, 21 Neb. App. 

535, 840 N.W.2d 573 (2013). In this case, it can be argued 

that the reason for leaving is not legitimate in that it was contemplated at the time the 2016 order granting joint legal and 

physical custody was entered. Under these circumstances, we 

find that an analysis must first be performed as to whether 

the stated reason for leaving was contemplated at the time the 

2016 stipulated order was entered in order to then determine 

whether that reason is indeed a legitimate reason to leave. 

Stated another way, we find that if the alleged reason for a 

custodial parent to leave was contemplated at the time of the 

entry of the prior order, such reason to leave cannot be considered legitimate.

The district court in this case did not perform an analysis 

of this issue in the foregoing context. However, the district 

court squarely addressed this issue in the context of assessing 

the parties’ motives for seeking and opposing removal. See 

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

(1999). The district court found that Natalie’s “marriage and 

pregnancy constitute a material change of circumstances which 

were not fully contemplated at the time of the original decree.” 

As such, we find that the record on this point is sufficient for 

our review.

It is clear from the evidence that the possibility of Natalie 

and Gregory at some point becoming engaged and married was 

well known to the parties prior to the entry of the August 2016 

stipulated order. Natalie’s letter to Brandon also demonstrates 
- 899 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

that at the time of its writing, both parties were involved 

in relationships that could lead to each of them wanting to 

move from Lancaster County. In particular, Natalie informed 

Brandon that due to Gregory’s employment and his assumption of responsibility for operating his parents’ farm, Gregory 

would not be able to leave Iowa. Therefore, if Natalie and 

Gregory were married at some future time, Natalie would want 

to move to Iowa with Paisley.

However, the evidence also demonstrates that at the time 

these issues were discussed, they constituted possibilities as 

opposed to expectations. Indeed, Brandon’s relationship with 

his girlfriend ended. Natalie’s relationship with Gregory continued, however, eventually resulting in pregnancy, a marriage proposal, and a wedding. Natalie testified that at the 

time the parties negotiated the stipulated order, she had to do 

so based on conditions as they existed at the time, since she 

did not know if Gregory would ever propose marriage to her. 

Brandon acknowledged that Natalie wrote the letter to him in 

response to his statements that he may be moving to Seward 

to be closer to his girlfriend. In his testimony, he agreed that 

the possibility of both parties moving in the future was hypothetical and depended on whether their current relationships 

developed further. He agreed that neither of them knew what 

the future held at the time they entered into the stipulated 

order of paternity.

On this record, we cannot say that the district court abused 

its discretion in finding that Natalie’s marriage to Gregory was 

not fully contemplated at the time of the prior order. While the 

possibility of marriage existed, it was not planned or even proposed at that point in time. Consequently, Natalie negotiated 

with Brandon based on conditions as they stood at the time as 

opposed to uncertain future possibilities. As such, we cannot 

find that her reason to leave was contemplated to a sufficient 

degree to find that there was no material change of circumstances from the conditions that existed at the time the August 

2016 order was entered.
- 900 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

2. Legitimate R

for Remov

[10] 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. Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin, 288 Neb. 240, 847 N.W.2d 

79 (2014). The Nebraska Supreme Court has determined that 

a move to reside with a custodial parent’s new spouse who is 

employed and resides in another state may constitute a legitimate reason for removal. Colling v. Colling, 20 Neb. App. 98, 

818 N.W.2d 637 (2012). Having found that the marriage to 

Gregory was not sufficiently contemplated at the time the 

August 2016 paternity order was entered, Natalie has demonstrated a legitimate reason for leaving the state.

3. Best Interests of Ch

[11] After demonstrating a legitimate reason for leaving the 

state exists, the custodial parent must next show that it is in 

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

Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin, supra. The paramount consideration is whether the proposed move is in the best interests of 

the child. Id. There are three broad considerations ordinarily 

to be employed in determining whether removal to another 

jurisdiction is in a child’s best interests: (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 

arrangements. Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954, 621 N.W.2d 

70 (2000).

(a) Each Parent’s Motives

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

is whether either party has elected or resisted a removal in an 

effort to frustrate or manipulate the other party. McLaughlin 
- 901 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

v. McLaughlin, 264 Neb. 232, 647 N.W.2d 577 (2002). In 

this case, we find no evidence that either party has acted in 

bad faith.

Natalie’s primary motive in seeking removal is her desire to 

live with her husband, who cannot move due to his work on his 

family’s farm. She notes that in Iowa, she would not have to 

work outside the home and could devote more time to Paisley 

and her newborn child.

Brandon opposes removal based on the close relationship he 

has developed with Paisley. Prior to trial, Paisley spent nearly 

half of her time with Brandon. Brandon wishes to maintain 

this level of involvement with her. He wants to remain a part 

of her daily life and be able to be present for her activities. 

This level of involvement would be impossible if removal 

was granted.

We find that both parents have valid reasons for and against 

removal of their child to Iowa. Their motives being equal, this 

factor does not weigh for or against removal.

(b) Quality of Life

[13] In determining the potential that the removal to 

another jurisdiction holds for enhancing the quality of life 

of the child and the custodial parent, a court should evaluate the following considerations: (1) the emotional, physical, 

and developmental needs of the child; (2) the child’s opinion 

or preference as to where to live; (3) the extent to which the 

relocating parent’s income or employment will be enhanced; 

(4) the degree to which housing or living conditions would be 

improved; (5) the existence of educational advantages; (6) the 

quality of the relationship between the child and each parent; 

(7) the strength of the child’s ties to the present community 

and extended family there; (8) the likelihood that allowing 

or denying the removal would antagonize hostilities between 

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

interests of the child are interwoven with the well-being of 
- 902 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

the custodial parent. Boyer v. Boyer, 24 Neb. App. 434, 889 

N.W.2d 832 (2017). 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. McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 

supra. Depending on the circumstances of a particular case, 

any one factor or combination of factors may be variously 

weighted. Id.

(i) Factors Favoring Removal

Both parents have been closely involved in meeting Paisley’s 

emotional, physical, and developmental needs. Natalie has in 

some areas been the primary caregiver. For example, she has 

taken Paisley to the majority of her medical appointments. If 

removal were granted, Natalie would have a greater ability to 

meet Paisley’s needs, since she would not have to work while 

providing care for Paisley and her younger sibling.

The third and ninth factors in the best interests determination are best examined together. Given Natalie’s intention to be 

a stay-at-home mother, her own income will not be enhanced 

by the move. However, the income of the household in which 

she is living will be substantially higher, particularly when 

Gregory takes over responsibility for the family farm. Natalie 

will no longer have to pay rent and daycare expenses and 

would not have to commute between her apartment in Lincoln 

and her husband’s residence in Iowa. However, it does appear 

that she could resume her career as a hair stylist in Iowa if she 

chose to do so or conditions demanded it.

If removal was denied, Paisley would split her time 

between three residences. During Natalie’s parenting time, 

she would live in a two-bedroom apartment primarily, but 

would regularly go to Iowa during weekends, holidays, and 

summer vacation. The remainder of her time would be spent 

with Brandon. If removal was granted, the apartment would 

be eliminated and she would primarily live in the house 
- 903 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

owned by Gregory in Iowa. As a result, she would spend 100 

percent of her time living in single family residences located 

on acreages.

(ii) Neutral Factors

Paisley is of a young age and did not testify as to her preference. Although there was some general testimony regarding smaller class sizes in the Glidden schools, there was 

no significant testimony demonstrating one location to have 

an educational advantage over the other. Finally, regardless 

of outcome, there are likely to be hard feelings between 

the parties. However, the evidence in this trial demonstrated 

that despite their differences, the parties have maintained an 

amicable relationship. Both parties were very complimentary of each other’s parenting skills. Natalie demonstrated a 

strong desire to nurture and encourage a strong bond between 

Paisley and Brandon even with the distance that would exist 

between them.

(iii) Factors Against Removal

The evidence establishes that all of Paisley’s extended family lives in Nebraska and that she sees those family members 

on a regular basis. In addition, it is likely that the quality of 

relationship currently enjoyed by Brandon and Paisley will 

suffer given the loss of frequent contact that would be occasioned by a move to Iowa. While the parenting plan attempts 

to restore time lost during the school year with extra time 

in the summer, the bottom line is that the day-to-day ability 

of Brandon to remain involved and active in Paisley’s life 

is diminished.

(iv) Quality of Life Conclusion

The district court concluded that as a whole, the quality of 

life factors weighed heavily in favor of removal. In our view, 

these factors are very close. However, based on our standard of 

review, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in reaching its conclusion.
- 904 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

(c) Impact on Noncustodial Parent’s 

Contact With Child

[14-16] The third factor in the best interests determination 

is the impact of the move on the contact between the child and 

the noncustodial parent, when viewed in light of reasonable 

visitation arrangements. Maranville v. Dworak, 17 Neb. App. 

245, 758 N.W.2d 70 (2008). This consideration focuses on the 

ability of the court to fashion a reasonable visitation schedule 

that will allow the noncustodial parent to maintain a meaningful parent-child relationship. Id. Generally, a reasonable 

visitation schedule is one that provides a satisfactory basis for 

preserving and fostering a child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent. Id. Of course, the frequency and the total number 

of days of visitation and the distance traveled and expense 

incurred go into the calculus of determining reasonableness. 

Id. Indications of the custodial parent’s willingness to comply 

with a modified visitation schedule also have a place in this 

analysis. Id.

There will be an impact from the move on the contact 

between Brandon and Paisley. Brandon will no longer enjoy 

the frequent in-person contact that he has enjoyed to this point 

in Paisley’s life. He will not be able to share in her day-today life to the extent that would be possible if removal was 

denied. The district court noted in its analysis that Paisley 

would have to travel to and from Iowa frequently, regardless of the decision on removal. The court further noted that 

Brandon would receive significant parenting time in the summer and on holidays. The court also noted Natalie’s intent to 

allow extra time to Brandon when she travels to Nebraska to 

see family.

We agree with the district court’s confidence that the parties will both strive to preserve and develop the relationship 

between father and daughter despite the distance between 

them. However, we must conclude that this relationship will 

not be of the same quality and depth that could occur were 

removal denied.
- 905 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance S

26 Nebraska Appellate Repor

SPEERS v. JOHNS

Cite as 26 Neb. App. 889

(d) Best Interests Conclusion

Removal cases rank among the most difficult decisions 

that a district court or a reviewing court is required to make. 

In this case, both parents have demonstrated their dedication to Paisley both in their testimony and their cooperative 

effort to provide her a safe and secure childhood. The district 

court concluded overall that Paisley’s interests would be best 

served by allowing removal. Reasonable minds may differ 

with the court’s conclusion. However, we are constrained by 

our standard of review. We recognize that the district court 

had the opportunity to see and hear the testimony of the parties. As such, we cannot find that the district court abused its 

discretion in concluding that Natalie’s request for removal 

should be granted. We therefore affirm the decision of the 

district court.

VI. CONCLUSION

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Natalie’s request to modify physical custody and remove 

Paisley to Iowa.

Affirme