- 17 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

Jeremy D. Westerhold, appellant, v.

Jessica M. Dutton, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed February 4, 2020. No. A-19-166.

1. Paternity: Appeal and Error. In a filiation proceeding, questions concerning child custody determinations are reviewed on appeal de novo on 

the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion 

by the trial court, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence of an 

abuse of discretion. In such de novo review, when the evidence is in 

conflict, the appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact 

that the trial court heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one 

version of the facts rather than another.

2. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists when 

a judge, within the effective limits of authorized judicial power, elects 

to act or refrains from acting, and the selected option results in a decision which is untenable and unfairly deprives a litigant of a substantial 

right or a just result in matters submitted for disposition through a judicial system.

3. Minors: Names: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews a trial 

court’s decision concerning a requested change in the surname of a 

minor de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independent of 

the findings of the trial court.

4. Child Custody: Visitation. Nebraska’s removal jurisprudence does not 

apply to a child born out of wedlock where there has been no prior adjudication addressing child custody or parenting time.

5. Paternity: Child Custody: Time. The time at which a paternity action 

is commenced serves as the reference point for determining whether 

there has been a prior child custody determination under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-1227(3) (Reissue 2016).

6. Paternity: Child Custody: Visitation. If a paternity action, where there 

has been no prior adjudication addressing child custody or parenting 

time, is determined by the children’s best interests, then there is no good 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

02/11/2020 01:06 AM CST
- 18 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

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

(1999), will not be properly included in the analytical framework to 

determine the children’s best interests.

7. Child Custody. While an unwed mother is initially entitled to automatic custody of the child, the issue of custody must ultimately be 

resolved on the basis of the fitness of the parents and the best interests 

of the child.

8. ____. When both parents are found to be fit, the inquiry for the court is 

the best interests of the children.

9. ____. The paramount consideration in determining child custody is the 

best interests of the children.

10. ____. In addition to the “best interests” factors listed in Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-2923 (Reissue 2016), a court making a child custody determination 

may consider matters such as the moral fitness of the child’s parents, 

including the parents’ sexual conduct; respective environments offered 

by each parent; the emotional relationship between the child and parents; the age, sex, and health of the child and parents; the effect on the 

child as the result of continuing or disrupting an existing relationship; 

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

capacity to provide physical care and satisfy the educational needs of 

the child.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Minors: Names. The question of whether the name of a minor child 

should be changed is determined by what is in the best interests of 

the child.

14. Minors: Names: Proof. The party seeking the change in surname 

has the burden of proving that the change in surname is in the child’s 

best interests.

15. Minors: Names. Cases considering the change in surname of a minor 

child have granted a change only when the substantial welfare of the 

child requires the surname to be changed.
- 19 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

16. ____: ____. A list of nonexclusive factors to consider in determining 

whether a change of surname is in the child’s best interests include (1) 

misconduct by one of the child’s parents; (2) a parent’s failure to support the child; (3) parental failure to maintain contact with the child; (4) 

the length of time that a surname has been used for or by the child; (5) 

whether the child’s surname is different from the surname of the child’s 

custodial parent; (6) a child’s reasonable preference for one of the surnames; (7) the effect of the change of the child’s surname on the preservation and development of the child’s relationship with each parent; 

(8) the degree of community respect associated with the child’s present 

surname and the proposed surname; (9) the difficulties, harassment, or 

embarrassment that the child may experience from bearing the present 

or proposed surname; and (10) the identification of the child as a part of 

a family unit.

Appeal from the District Court for Thurston County: John 

E. Samson, Judge. Affirmed.

Matthew M. Munderloh, of Johnson & Mock, P.C., L.L.O., 

for appellant.

Douglas J. Stratton, of Stratton, DeLay, Doele, Carlson, 

Buettner & Stover, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.

Pirtle, Riedmann, and Welch, Judges.

Pirtle, Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Jeremy D. Westerhold appeals from an order of the district 

court for Thurston County finding him to be the biological 

father of Ledger W. Dutton; awarding custody of Ledger to 

Jessica M. Dutton, Ledger’s biological mother; and permitting 

Jessica to remove Ledger from Nebraska to Illinois. For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

Jeremy and Jessica met in August 2016 while they were 

employed at Ronnefeldt Farms, which is located just outside of 

Lyons, Nebraska. The two began dating soon after, moved in 

together, and were briefly engaged to be married. They ended 
- 20 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

their relationship in June 2017, while Jessica was pregnant. 

Jessica gave birth to Ledger in October 2017. On December 

20, Jeremy filed a complaint to establish paternity, custody, 

parenting time, child support, and other related issues. Jeremy 

sought sole custody of Ledger or, in the alternative, liberal 

parenting time. Jeremy also sought an order of the court 

establishing his surname as Ledger’s surname. Jessica filed an 

answer and counterclaim admitting Jeremy is the biological 

father of Ledger and seeking sole legal and physical custody 

of Ledger.

On February 21, 2018, Jeremy and Jessica reached an 

agreement regarding provisions of a temporary order, and the 

district court approved and ordered the same. The temporary 

order granted Jeremy parenting time every other weekend and 

on Wednesday evenings of each week, provided that the parenting time was supervised by Jeremy’s parents. On May 9, 

the court entered a stipulated temporary order that lifted the 

supervision restriction on Jeremy’s parenting time. On July 

27, Jessica filed an amended counterclaim requesting that “she 

be granted the opportunity to move [Ledger] to the Carthage, 

Illinois area.” The matter was tried before the district court on 

October 22, 2018.

At trial, Jeremy testified that he has resided in Lyons for 

the last 19 to 20 years. He has spent the last 13 years raising 

hogs and is currently employed at Ronnefeldt Farms. Jeremy 

acknowledged that he is the biological father of Ledger.

Jeremy testified that although he signed an acknowledgment of paternity, recognizing that Ledger had been given the 

“Dutton” surname, he did not agree to the name on the date of 

trial or at the time he signed the document. He testified that 

he signed the document merely to acknowledge Ledger as his 

child and had hoped Ledger would be given the “Westerhold” 

surname. Jeremy further testified that Jessica previously mentioned a name change prior to Ledger’s being born, but that she 

said she probably would not go through with it, and that he did 
- 21 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

not find out until the morning Ledger was born that he would 

be given Jessica’s surname.

Jeremy testified that he first met Jessica in August 2016 

after she had obtained employment at Ronnefeldt Farms 

through her mother, who was a manager there. Soon after, 

the two began dating, Jessica moved in with Jeremy, and they 

got engaged. They remained living together until June 2017. 

After Jessica moved out, she first moved in with her mother, 

who lived just outside of Lyons, and then to Pender, Nebraska. 

Jeremy testified that at the time of trial, he believed Jessica 

was no longer residing in Pender but was staying in Quincy, 

Illinois. He testified that he recalled the court previously 

denying Jessica’s request to move with Ledger to Illinois at 

an earlier hearing, but that she moved anyway and left Ledger 

in Nebraska with a friend of hers, Whitney Larson. Jeremy 

testified that he barely knew Larson and that he had discussed 

with Jessica the possibility of Ledger’s living with his parents 

for the time Jessica was living in Illinois before their next 

court hearing.

Jeremy testified that under a previous temporary order granting him supervised parenting time, his parents, Dan Westerhold 

and Tami Westerhold, were to supervise. Jeremy testified that 

Jessica did not want Ledger to stay with Jeremy’s parents 

for the month she was in Illinois and that they had talked 

about alternating 2 weeks in Lyons and 2 weeks with Jessica 

in Illinois, but he did not want to go 2 weeks without seeing Ledger.

While Ledger was with Larson, Jeremy maintained the same 

visitation schedule as before and would provide the transportation to pick Ledger up from daycare and drop him off with 

Larson. On two occasions, Jessica took Ledger to Illinois for 

a period of 5 days, but never interfered with the parenting 

time that had been arranged for Jeremy. Jeremy testified that 

he never agreed to have Ledger travel to Illinois for that time 

because he did not believe it was in Ledger’s best interests to 

travel that much.
- 22 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

In October 2018, leading up to trial, Ledger spent 2 weeks 

with Jeremy’s parents at the beginning of the month, and 

Jessica had him since then. Jeremy was able to maintain his 

parenting time under the temporary order, and additionally 

until 8 p.m. every evening.

Jeremy testified that between Ledger’s birth in October 

2017 and January 2018, he spent approximately 20 hours total 

with Ledger, despite requesting more time with him. He testified that he had discussed with Jessica having more time with 

Ledger, but the two never agreed on anything. Jeremy testified that Jessica would never allow him to spend time alone 

with Ledger and that she would only permit a few hours at a 

time. In February, Jeremy was granted specific parenting time 

consisting of Wednesday evenings and every other weekend 

pursuant to a temporary order. The supervision aspect was 

lifted in May.

Jeremy testified that Jessica has another child from a previous relationship, Rhett Dutton, who was a few months old 

when Jeremy first met Jessica. When Jessica moved in with 

Jeremy, Jessica’s brother and Rhett also moved in. Jeremy 

testified that he would take Rhett to daycare before he went 

to work each day and would often watch him while Jessica 

napped. Jeremy would dress Rhett, change his diaper, and 

provide a bottle for daycare if needed because Jessica had an 

earlier start to her shift. Jeremy would also feed, bathe, clothe, 

and change Rhett during the evenings. Occasionally, Jessica 

would leave Rhett alone in Jeremy’s care.

Jeremy testified that the night Jessica moved out, he had 

left work and began taking care of Rhett. He first took Rhett 

to Jessica’s parents’ home, then to his own parents’ home 

where apparently eight people were having a bonfire, and 

then to his home, where Jeremy put Rhett to sleep. Jeremy 

then fell asleep, and when he woke up at 11 p.m., Jessica, 

her brother, and Rhett were gone. Jeremy testified that he had 

consumed two beers that night. He noted that he did not have 
- 23 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

any discussion with Jessica before she left and that they had 

not discussed her reasons for leaving.

Jeremy further testified that he was aware that Jessica 

wrote in an affidavit that while the two were living together, 

he would at times consume alcohol from the time he woke 

up until he went to bed. He denied ever doing so. Jeremy 

indicated that he obtained a substance abuse evaluation due to 

Jessica’s concerns about his alcohol use. He testified that he 

was honest in reciting his history of alcohol use and that no 

treatment recommendations were provided.

Jeremy testified that he does not drink alcohol presently and 

has not done so since August 25, 2017. He testified that he 

chose to stop consuming alcohol for the well-being of Ledger 

and their relationship. Jeremy admitted that Jessica at times 

would tell him to stop drinking while they were living together 

but that she nevertheless permitted him to care for Rhett. 

Jeremy indicated that his alcohol use has very rarely caused 

him to be late for work, and not at all within the previous 2 

years since Ledger was born. Jeremy testified that he went to 

South Dakota to “get sober,” despite not participating in a formal treatment program, and did come back sober.

Jeremy testified that his parents live in Lyons, his grandmother lives in Pender, and he has other extended family in 

the Valley-Omaha area in Nebraska. He testified that during 

their relationship, Jessica would occasionally talk to him about 

how frequently she moved as a child. He also testified Rhett 

has lived at four different addresses with Jessica since he 

was born.

Jeremy testified that he believes awarding him custody of 

Ledger would be in Ledger’s best interests because he provides 

more structure and stability, he does not plan on moving, and 

his parents live just “two houses down” from his home. Jeremy 

further testified that he has had the same employer for the last 

13 years, despite brief periods where he did not work. Jeremy 

testified that although both his parents work full time, they 

would still have time to watch Ledger when necessary.
- 24 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

Jeremy indicated that he ordinarily goes to work and then 

goes home, but occasionally will spend time with his friends, 

who both have children and families of their own. Jeremy testified that he works an average of 114 hours every 2 weeks, but 

it varies.

Jeremy testified that he does not agree with Jessica’s decision to move with Ledger to Illinois because he wants to create 

a bond with him, watch him grow up, and help him with school 

and because the distance would not be good for their relationship. He testified that he would like structure for Ledger and 

that Jessica moves a lot. Jeremy noted that the night before 

trial, Jessica had mentioned to him that she was going to move 

to Hebron, Nebraska, if she was not permitted by the court to 

move to Illinois.

Jeremy testified that if he is awarded custody, he plans on 

continuing to live in Lyons and work at Ronnefeldt Farms and 

would not prevent Jessica from seeing Ledger. Jeremy noted 

that if Jessica remains in Illinois, she would be 6 hours away 

from Lyons. Prior to trial, he and Jessica had been meeting 

near the halfway point in Des Moines, Iowa, to arrange visitation with Ledger.

Jeremy went on to testify that he recently received a raise 

and currently makes $15.50 per hour. Jeremy carries health 

insurance for Ledger through his employment, and the amount 

he pays gets automatically taken out of his paycheck. He further testified that he has been paying child support pursuant to 

the previous temporary order and was voluntarily paying support prior to the order.

Jeremy testified that he is requesting Ledger’s surname 

be changed to Westerhold because Ledger is his “blood” 

and “Dutton is [Jessica’s] adopted last name.” He stated, 

“It’s only right that [Ledger] has the Westerhold last name 

because I’m the last one to carry on the Westerhold name.” 

Jeremy testified that he was upset and left the hospital when 

he learned that Ledger would be given Jessica’s surname. He 

testified that he and Jessica had previously discussed what 
- 25 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

Ledger’s surname would be and that he understood it would 

be Westerhold.

On cross-examination, Jeremy testified that he went to South 

Dakota in June 2017 to “get sober” in order “to kick the habit 

completely” because that is what Jessica wanted from him. 

Jeremy testified that he stayed with a friend, the friend’s wife, 

and their three children and that they watched him in order 

to make sure he did not “touch” alcohol. He testified that the 

alcohol evaluation he received does not show the fact that he 

went to South Dakota to get sober, but that he told the evaluator when she was conducting the evaluation. Jeremy testified 

that the evaluator informed him that she would talk with collateral sources about his drinking habits, but he was not aware 

that she spoke with only his mother. Jeremy denied the affidavit of Jessica’s brother, saying that on the night Jessica left, 

Jeremy was intoxicated to the point he passed out.

Jeremy testified that under his current work schedule, he 

works 14 consecutive days, typically from 6 a.m. until 3 or 

4 p.m. He noted that he also receives vacation days and paid 

time off from his employment. He testified that he has worked 

for Ronnefeldt Farms for the last 13 years, but briefly quit on 

two occasions.

Jeremy denied ever threatening Jessica that he could simply 

take Ledger away, explaining he merely meant that Ledger is 

his child as well and he should be able to see him when he 

chooses. He testified that the majority of visits with Ledger 

originally took place at his home, but that stopped when he 

made the comment to Jessica about being able to take Ledger.

Justin Redding, Jeremy’s friend and his supervisor at 

Ronnefeldt Farms, testified that he and Jeremy are social 

outside of work and will occasionally go out for supper or 

play video games together. Redding testified that he has two 

children, who were ages 7 and 4 at the time of trial, and 

that Jeremy is “pretty much family” to them. Jeremy is the 

godfather of Redding’s older child. Redding testified that he 

and his wife do not drink alcohol and that he does not see 
- 26 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

Jeremy drink when they socialize together. Redding testified 

that in the 12 or 13 years he has worked with Jeremy, he has 

never seen him drunk at work or known him to be late due 

to alcohol.

Redding testified that from his observations, Jeremy is “very 

protective” of Ledger and the two “go hand in hand.” Redding 

testified that he has no reservations having Jeremy take care of 

his own children and that he has babysat them when they were 

younger. Redding noted that he has no concerns about Jeremy 

as a parent.

Tami, Jeremy’s mother, testified that she and her husband, 

Dan, have lived in Lyons together for 18 to 20 years. She testified that they currently live “[t]wo doors over” from Jeremy. 

Tami testified that her family is from Lyons and that many of 

them still live around the area, or near Omaha.

Tami testified that when she supervised visitation between 

Jeremy and Ledger, she did not need to be involved and 

Jeremy was capable of taking care of Ledger on his own. She 

testified that overnight weekend visits occurred at Jeremy’s 

home and that she was usually the one to supervise those visits. Tami would observe Jeremy change Ledger’s diaper, put 

his pajamas on, and put him to bed. Jeremy would also care for 

Ledger when he woke up at night and take care of his morning routine.

Tami testified that on the evening Jessica moved out from 

Jeremy’s home, she received a text from Jessica asking her 

to get Rhett from Jeremy’s home. Afterward, Jessica picked 

up Rhett from Jeremy’s parents’ home, she moved out of 

Jeremy’s home, and Tami and Jessica have not spoken much 

since then.

Tami further testified that she and Dan would have been 

willing to take care of Ledger for the initial month Jessica was 

in Illinois, but that did not happen and Ledger was placed in 

the care of Jessica’s friend, Larson. The next month, Ledger 

spent a couple weeks with Tami and Dan.
- 27 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

Tami testified that she does not believe Jeremy presently 

consumes or abuses alcohol, but that at one point, he had a 

problem. On cross-examination, Tami testified that she has 

not witnessed Jeremy consume alcohol since he went to South 

Dakota but that others used to say he drank too much.

Dan, Jeremy’s father, testified that from his observations 

while supervising parenting time between Jeremy and Ledger, 

things went well and Jeremy was “very attentive.” He testified that he does not have any concerns about Jeremy’s ability 

to parent Ledger. Dan further testified that when he observed 

Jeremy take care of Jessica’s child, Rhett, he believed that he 

did a good job doing so.

On cross-examination, Dan testified that he “[p]robably 

years ago” called Jeremy an alcoholic but that he does not 

recall doing so in the presence of Jessica. He testified he 

believes that Jeremy has occasionally made bad decisions in 

the past and that was the basis for calling Jeremy an alcoholic.

Jessica testified that she moved around quite a bit when she 

was younger “due to the military,” but that she attended school 

in Hebron from 4th through 12th grades. When her mother 

remarried in 2007, Jessica was adopted and took her current 

surname, Dutton. Jessica testified that she moved from Hebron 

to Grand Island, Nebraska, and later to Trenton, Missouri, for 

a job opportunity. She moved back to Hebron in January 2016 

and then to Pender in August of that year.

Jessica testified that she is the sole provider of Rhett, her 

child from a previous relationship, and that Rhett’s father is 

not involved in their lives. Jessica testified that before she was 

engaged to Jeremy, he told her he had another child but that 

the mother “is bad [sic] shit crazy so [he] want[s] nothing to 

do with them.”

At the time of trial, Jessica was enrolled in college and was 

pursuing a degree in business administration, with a focus on 

human resource management, through online courses.

Jessica testified that in February 2017, she found out she 

was pregnant with Ledger and Jeremy was the first person 
- 28 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

she told. Jessica testified that prior to Ledger’s birth, she 

told Jeremy that if he did not seek professional help for his 

drinking, she would leave him, and that Jeremy responded, 

“[W]ell, bye.”

Jessica further testified that when Jeremy would take Rhett 

to daycare, she would lay out clothes for Rhett and all Jeremy 

had to do was change his diaper, dress him, and drop him off at 

daycare. According to Jessica, Jeremy probably watched Rhett 

unsupervised only two or three times, in addition to the mornings before taking him to daycare, and never overnight.

Jessica testified that Jeremy went to South Dakota to get 

sober after she had already left, in July 2017, and that she told 

him she “didn’t think it was a good decision because they were 

known for their drinking.” Jessica testified that she had concerns about the alcohol use of the friends Jeremy stayed with 

there, because when they had visited “they drank the entire 

time,” and that Jeremy had indicated he used to drink with 

them when they lived in Nebraska.

Jessica explained that the night she moved out of Jeremy’s 

home, she received a call from her brother and became concerned that her son, Rhett, “was not being safely taken care 

of.” At that point, she called Jeremy’s mother, Tami, and asked 

that she pick up Rhett from Jeremy’s home and said she would 

be at Jeremy’s parents’ home soon to pick him up. Jessica 

testified that after she got off work, at around 7:30 p.m., she 

drove to Jeremy’s home. Jessica walked into the living room 

and found Jeremy sleeping on the couch and a few beer cans 

on the table. She was able to smell alcohol on his breath. 

When Jessica shook Jeremy and he did not wake up, she felt 

that it was not safe to raise her children there so she packed 

her things, picked up Rhett from Jeremy’s parents’ home, and 

stayed with her parents for a few days.

Jessica testified that at one of her medical appointments, 

prior to Ledger’s birth, she told Jeremy that she felt it was best 

to give Ledger her surname, since it is both her and Rhett’s 
- 29 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

surname, and that Jeremy got upset but did not want to fight 

about it.

Jessica testified that Jeremy’s father, Dan, on multiple occasions would tell Jeremy that “he was going to lose [Jessica] 

and the children if he didn’t straighten up.” She testified that 

on the night she moved out, when she went to pick up Rhett, 

Dan called Jeremy a “fucking alcoholic.” She testified that 

while they were together, Jeremy would pick up a case of 

beer every night after work and drink beer until he fell asleep. 

During the time Jeremy was not employed, a period of about 

21⁄2 months, he would “drink as soon as he would wake up.” 

Jessica testified that her experiences with Jeremy’s drinking 

have shaped how she has dealt with the parenting time he 

receives with Ledger.

Jessica testified that visitations were initially unstructured 

until she returned to work, but she brought Ledger to see 

Jeremy approximately two times a week. Jeremy had originally 

suggested an arrangement where he spent every other weekend with Ledger, but Jessica was not comfortable with that 

arrangement without a court order because Jeremy would tell 

her that he was going to keep Ledger and that he did not have 

to return him.

Jessica maintained that she has never denied Jeremy is the 

father of Ledger and that she understands it is important for 

children to have their father in their life. She testified that she 

wanted visitation to be supervised because of Jeremy’s previous alcohol use and the incident where she discovered him 

passed out while Rhett was in his care.

Jessica testified that she is employed with Professional 

Swine Management (PSM) in Carthage, Illinois, and works 

as the merchandising and logistics coordinator, which corresponds with her education in business administration. She testified that PSM is the company both her parents are employed 

with and that she received a telephone call about PSM’s open 

positions. She testified that she prefers to stay in the hog 
- 30 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

industry and has researched companies near the Nebraska 

area, but the available positions were not in her field. She 

noted that her current position with PSM provides a consistent workday of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., which allows her more 

time with her children, including holidays, paid time off, and 

vacation days. Jessica testified that despite accepting the position with PSM in Illinois, she still maintained her residence 

in Pender in order to not interfere with the court-ordered 

parenting time.

Jessica testified that she has taken care of Rhett and Ledger 

every day of their lives and that they love each other and get 

along “[l]ike brothers.” When Ledger leaves for visitation, 

Rhett will ask where he is. Jessica testified that the two “play 

all day, all night” and that it’s “heartbreaking” when they are 

apart. She believes this is one reason it is in Ledger’s best 

interests that she be granted full custody.

At the time of trial, Jessica did not have permanent housing in Illinois but noted that she had a place lined up with a 

landlord who ensured that she and the children had a place to 

stay in the event she was awarded custody. Jessica testified 

that she is awarded overtime pay at a rate of $20.25 per hour 

for anything over 40 hours per week and earns a regular wage 

of $13.50 per hour. Jessica testified that benefits with PSM 

include health insurance, a retirement plan, and life insurance. PSM also offers tuition reimbursement for Jessica’s 

last year of college so long as the degree benefits her career 

with PSM.

Jessica testified that her work schedule at Legacy Garden 

in Pender, where she worked prior to her move to Illinois, 

was not structured and that she wanted more structure in 

order to make it easier to care for Rhett and Ledger. She 

testified that her daycare in Illinois costs $200 per week for 

both Rhett and Ledger and that the provider is in the process 

of getting licensed. She testified that she has looked into the 

school district in Carthage and believes it will be good for 

the children.
- 31 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

Jessica’s mother and stepfather reside in Moberly, Missouri, 

which is 1 hour 45 minutes from Carthage. Her brother lives 

in Quincy. Jessica testified that she is very close to her parents 

and that she intends to keep them in her life, particularly if she 

receives full custody of Ledger.

Jessica testified that she does not believe Jeremy has 

become 100-percent clean from any alcohol abuse without his 

receiving professional help. She testified that she was never 

contacted about Jeremy’s alcohol use and that she finds it 

concerning Jeremy’s mother was the only collateral source in 

his evaluation because she would likely say what would benefit Jeremy.

Jessica testified that she believes it is important for her children to be brought up with religion as part of their lives and 

that it provides them with structure. She testified that Jeremy 

attended church with her only once or twice and that he said 

that “he would catch on fire or be struck by lightning if he 

entered a church.”

On cross-examination, Jessica admitted that she has previously been paid a higher hourly rate than her position in 

Illinois, but that the jobs were different. She testified that 

her address in Pender is still where her belongings are and 

that she is listed on the lease, but she is physically living 

in Illinois with her brother. She agreed that over the last 5 

years, she has lived at seven different addresses. Jessica testified that she was living in Grand Island when she was convicted of issuing a bad check because she wrote it out of the 

wrong account.

Jessica testified that she moved to Illinois for a better job 

opportunity and to be closer to her immediate family. She 

does not have a contract for a particular term with PSM and 

is considered an at-will employee. Jessica indicated that she 

researched hog companies in Nebraska but there were less 

opportunities with large companies in the state. She testified 

that she will generally relocate to a company that is more 

beneficial for her. She maintained that PSM provides the 
- 32 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

opportunity to transfer positions, but she will not need to transfer from PSM because it is so large.

Jessica testified that despite having concerns about Jeremy’s 

drinking, she left Rhett in his care because her brother was 

there as well, so Jeremy was not alone with Rhett. She further testified that when she went to Illinois, she left Ledger 

with her friend, Larson, instead of Jeremy’s parents, because 

Larson was someone she trusted and she believed Jeremy’s 

parents would simply do what benefits Jeremy. Jessica testified that she cannot say one way or another whether Jeremy 

is entirely fit or unfit to be the custodial parent of Ledger due 

to her concerns with his past alcohol use and her inability to 

fully trust him. Jessica further testified that she disputes that 

Jeremy received only around 20 hours of visitation the first 4 

months after Ledger was born because she was on maternity 

leave for the first 6 weeks and would bring Ledger over twice 

a week, sometimes up to 6 hours at a time.

Pamela Potter testified that she first met Jessica through 

her daughter, Rebekah Potter, when the two worked together 

at Legacy Garden, and also through church, but was previously aware of her because Rebekah provided daycare for 

Rhett. Pamela testified that Jessica would bring Rhett and 

Ledger with her to church services and that Jessica occasionally brought them to her home. Pamela testified that 

Jessica is an “excellent mom” and cares for both the physical and mental well-being of her children. She testified that 

she believes it is in the children’s best interests that Jessica 

receive full custody.

Rebekah, a friend and former coworker of Jessica, testified 

that she has known Jessica for 3 years, that they met when 

Jessica’s former daycare provider recommended her to provide daycare for Rhett, and that the two later worked together 

at Legacy Garden. Rebekah provided daycare for both Rhett 

and Ledger and observed both to be happy children. Rebekah 

testified that she would spend time with Jessica and the 

children at least twice a week when Ledger was first born. 
- 33 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

Rebekah testified that Jessica is a “great mother” and puts 

her children before herself. She testified that she believes 

it would be good for the children if Jessica were granted 

custody because she has been a good mother and they both 

love her.

On January 18, 2019, the district court set forth an order 

awarding Jessica the sole care, custody, and control of Ledger, 

subject to liberal parenting time with Jeremy. The district court 

gave consideration to removal factors within its custody and 

best interests analysis and awarded Jessica custody knowing 

she would be relocating to Illinois. The district court also 

found that Jeremy had not met his burden in showing that the 

requested name change was in the minor child’s best interests.

III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Jeremy asserts the district court erred by (1) allowing Jessica 

to remove their minor child from the State of Nebraska without 

first requiring her “to strictly prove the factors of removal as 

provided in Farnsworth”; (2) awarding Jessica sole legal and 

physical custody of their minor child; and (3) ordering that the 

minor child maintain Jessica’s surname.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] In a filiation proceeding, questions concerning child 

custody determinations are reviewed on appeal de novo on 

the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of 

discretion by the trial court, whose judgment will be upheld in 

the absence of an abuse of discretion. In such de novo review, 

when the evidence is in conflict, the appellate court considers, 

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

observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts 

rather than another. Citta v. Facka, 19 Neb. App. 736, 812 

N.W.2d 917 (2012).

[2] A judicial abuse of discretion exists when a judge, within 

the effective limits of authorized judicial power, elects to act 

or refrains from acting, and the selected option results in a 
- 34 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

decision which is untenable and unfairly deprives a litigant 

of a substantial right or a just result in matters submitted for 

disposition through a judicial system. Boyer v. Boyer, 24 Neb. 

App. 434, 889 N.W.2d 832 (2017).

[3] An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision concerning a requested change in the surname of a minor de novo 

on the record and reaches a conclusion independent of the findings of the trial court. State on behalf of Connor H. v. Blake G., 

289 Neb. 246, 856 N.W.2d 295 (2014).

V. ANALYSIS

1. Custody and Removal

Jeremy’s first assignment of error is that the district court 

erred when it permitted Jessica to remove Ledger from 

Nebraska to Illinois. Jeremy argues that the court should have 

required Jessica to first strictly prove the factors under the 

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

(1999), removal analysis. Alternatively, Jeremy contends that 

the district court, to the extent it did apply Farnsworth, abused 

its discretion in concluding the factors weighed in favor of 

removal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district 

court’s order awarding Jessica custody and permitting her to 

relocate to Illinois with the child.

[4] Jeremy first argues that the district court inappropriately 

applied our instructive language in Coleman v. Kahler, 17 

Neb. App. 518, 520, 766 N.W.2d 142, 144-45 (2009), where 

we held that “Nebraska’s removal jurisprudence does not 

apply to a child born out of wedlock where there has been no 

prior adjudication addressing child custody or parenting time.” 

Jeremy cites to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1227(3) (Reissue 2016) 

in his assertion that the Farnsworth removal analysis applies 

here because there has been a prior adjudication in this case. 

Section 43-1227(3) defines the phrase “child custody determination” as

a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing 

for the legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with 
- 35 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

respect to a child. The term includes a permanent, temporary, initial, and modification order. The term does not 

include an order relating to child support or other monetary obligation of an individual.

Jeremy filed his initial complaint seeking a paternity and 

custody determination on December 20, 2017. On July 27, 

2018, Jessica filed a motion to amend her counterclaim for 

full legal and physical custody, additionally seeking the court’s 

permission to remove the child to Illinois. While there were 

some issues with the filing of Jessica’s amended counterclaim, 

and Jeremy’s reply to Jessica’s counterclaim, they agreed to 

proceed on the issues raised in those pleadings at the commencement of trial on October 22.

Prior to trial, two temporary orders were entered. Jeremy 

argues that the temporary order entered on February 21, 2018, 

granting him specific supervised parenting time and that the 

subsequent stipulated temporary order entered on May 9, 

removing the supervision component of Jeremy’s parenting 

time, amount to a prior adjudication within the meaning of 

§ 43-1227(3) and Coleman v. Kahler, supra. However, we 

agree with the district court’s determination that Nebraska’s 

removal jurisprudence does not apply to this case because, 

as the court noted in its order, “[a]t the time this action was 

commenced, no custody order, temporary or otherwise, had 

been rendered.”

[5] In Coleman v. Kahler, 17 Neb. App. at 527, 766 N.W.2d 

at 149, this court cited the definition of the phrase “child 

custody determination” under § 43-1227(3) in finding that 

“[u]nder the [statute’s] definition, before [the father] commenced the instant proceeding, there had been no child custody 

determination in this case with regard to either child.” Notably, 

this court referred to the time the paternity action was “commenced” as the reference point for determining whether there 

had been a prior adjudication. Under § 43-1227(5), the word 

“commencement” means “the filing of the first pleading in a 

proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied.)
- 36 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

In this case, Jeremy filed the initial complaint prior to any 

temporary order being entered. While Coleman v. Kahler, 

supra, involved a situation where the initial filing and the 

issue of removal were raised simultaneously, the facts of this 

case are similar to those in Derby v. Martinez, 24 Neb. App. 

17, 879 N.W.2d 58 (2016). In Derby, an initial complaint 

to establish paternity was filed, a temporary order regarding 

parenting time was later entered, and the issue of removal 

was raised after the temporary order. Nevertheless, this court 

still held that the case involved an initial custody determination and that Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 

N.W.2d 592 (1999), was to be given some consideration, but 

was not strictly required. Because we find that there was no 

prior adjudication addressing child custody or parenting time 

at the time this case commenced, with Jeremy’s complaint, this 

argument fails.

[6] Jeremy next invites this court to reconsider our application of Nebraska removal jurisprudence to cases such as this, 

where the underlying action involves a paternity determination in conjunction with questions of custody and removal 

of a minor child. In doing so, Jeremy cites to our decision 

in Rommers v. Rommers, 22 Neb. App. 606, 858 N.W.2d 607 

(2014), where we held that Coleman v. Kahler, 17 Neb. App. 

518, 766 N.W.2d 142 (2009), was distinguishable from the facts 

before us insomuch as Coleman involved a paternity action and 

Rommers involved an action for the dissolution of marriage. 

In a recent opinion, Olson v. Olson, 27 Neb. App. 869, ___ 

N.W.2d ___ (2019), we reaffirmed our decision in Rommers

and applied the Farnsworth analysis to a custody and removal 

determination in a dissolution proceeding. Nevertheless, the 

instant case is a paternity action and within the purview of 

Coleman v. Kahler, supra. We therefore find that Nebraska’s 

removal jurisprudence does not strictly apply. Nevertheless, we 

acknowledge our previous holding that

“if the instant case is determined by the children’s best 

interests, then we can conceive of no good reason why 
- 37 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

Farnsworth [v. Farnsworth, supra,] would not be properly included in the analytical framework to determine 

the children’s best interests.” In re Interest of Eric O. & 

Shane O., 9 Neb. App. 676, 684, 617 N.W.2d 824, 831 

(2000). Accordingly, we give some consideration to the 

Farnsworth factors in determining custody based on the 

children’s best interests.

Coleman v. Kahler, 17 Neb. App. at 529, 766 N.W.2d at 150.

Based on that background, the district court correctly applied 

the relevant factors in granting Jessica custody based on the 

minor child’s best interests. In conducting its best interests 

analysis, the district court considered various factors, including, but not limited to, those enumerated in Farnsworth v. 

Farnsworth, supra. We discuss the best interests factors more 

thoroughly below. Nevertheless, we find that the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in determining that it was in the 

best interests of the minor child to continue to live with Jessica 

and permit the child’s removal to Illinois.

Jeremy separately assigns that the district court erred in 

awarding Jessica the legal and physical custody of Ledger. It 

is Jeremy’s contention that it is in the best interests of Ledger 

that Jeremy be awarded legal and physical custody. We disagree. As previously discussed, Nebraska’s removal jurisprudence does not apply to a child born out of wedlock where 

there has been no prior adjudication addressing child custody 

or parenting time. Coleman v. Kahler, supra. Therefore, the 

issue of removal and custody are determined together based on 

the child’s best interests.

In a filiation proceeding, questions concerning child custody 

determinations are reviewed on appeal de novo on the record 

to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion by 

the trial court, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence 

of an abuse of discretion. Derby v. Martinez, supra.

[7,8] While an unwed mother is initially entitled to automatic custody of the child, the issue of custody must ultimately be resolved on the basis of the fitness of the parents 
- 38 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

and the best interests of the child. Citta v. Facka, 19 Neb. App. 

736, 812 N.W.2d 917 (2012). In this case, neither party contests the fitness of the other to parent the minor child. When 

both parents are found to be fit, the inquiry for the court is the 

best interests of the children. Olson v. Olson, 27 Neb. App. 

869, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2019). We therefore direct our attention 

to the child’s best interests.

[9] The paramount consideration in determining child custody is the best interests of the children. Donald v. Donald, 296 

Neb. 123, 892 N.W.2d 100 (2017). Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2923 

(Reissue 2016) of Nebraska’s Parenting Act sets forth a nonexclusive list of factors to be considered in determining the 

best interests of a child in regard to custody. Floerchinger v. 

Floerchinger, 24 Neb. App. 120, 883 N.W.2d 419 (2016). The 

factors of § 43-2923 include the relationship of the minor child 

with each parent; the desires and wishes of the minor child; 

the general health, welfare, and social behavior of the minor 

child; credible evidence of abuse inflicted on any family or 

household member; and credible evidence of child abuse or 

neglect or domestic intimate partner abuse. See Floerchinger v. 

Floerchinger, supra.

[10] In addition to the “best interests” factors listed in 

§ 43-2923, a court making a child custody determination 

may consider matters such as the moral fitness of the child’s 

parents, including the parents’ sexual conduct; respective 

environments offered by each parent; the emotional relationship between child and parents; the age, sex, and health of 

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

continuing or disrupting an existing relationship; the attitude 

and stability of each parent’s character; and the parental 

capacity to provide physical care and satisfy the educational 

needs of the child. Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98, 858 N.W.2d 

865 (2015).

[11] Finally, Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 

597 N.W.2d 592 (1999), sets forth three broad considerations 

in determining whether removal to another jurisdiction is in 
- 39 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

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. Wild v. Wild, 13 Neb. App. 495, 696 N.W.2d 

886 (2005).

Jeremy argues that it is in Ledger’s best interests that Jeremy 

be awarded full custody because he provides a more stable 

environment than Jessica. However, Jeremy fails to consider 

the other factors enumerated under § 43-2923 and applicable 

case law. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the appropriate best interests factors, 

awarding Jessica custody of the minor child, and permitting 

removal of the child to Illinois.

In its order determining custody and permitting removal, 

the district court considered each parent’s motive for seeking or opposing the move. There is no evidence that Jessica 

made the decision to move to Illinois to keep the minor child 

away from Jeremy. Rather, her motivations were employment related. Jessica believed her employer in Illinois could 

provide the potential for career advancement, a comparable 

salary to her previous employer, desirable benefits, and stable 

hours that allow her to spend time with her children. While 

Jeremy has a legitimate reason to oppose the move due to the 

distance, the parenting plan and visitation schedule provide 

him ample opportunity to continue to foster a relationship 

with Ledger.

The district court also considered various factors in determining the potential that the move holds for enhancing the 

quality of life for the child and the custodial parent. The 

district court considered the emotional, physical, and developmental needs of the child. In doing so, the court considered 

the fact that Jessica has been Ledger’s primary caretaker 

since his birth and “has provided a good home, proper meals, 
- 40 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

consistent religious upbringing, and a stable routine for the 

minor child.” At trial, Jeremy conceded that Jessica is a good 

mother, provides for Ledger’s needs, and otherwise keeps a 

good home. Testimony from Pamela and Rebekah, both of 

whom had ample opportunity to observe Jessica’s parenting 

with respect to Ledger and her other son, Rhett, supported the 

fact that Jessica has done well as a mother and provided for 

her children’s needs.

While the record does not suggest that Jeremy is incapable 

of providing for Ledger, the district court appropriately noted 

that nearly all of his parenting time has been supervised and 

that he has had little opportunity to parent on his own without 

assistance since Ledger’s birth. There was also substantial evidence to support that Jeremy has a history of alcohol abuse. 

While the extent of his alcohol use was disputed, we defer to 

the district court in its finding that Jeremy’s history with alcohol was at least enough to cause concern.

[12] 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). In its order, the district court 

found Jessica’s testimony regarding Jeremy’s reoccurring use 

of alcohol to be credible. The court also found Jessica’s recollection of the night in June 2017 where she found Jeremy 

“passed out” on the couch with several beer cans nearby, 

while he was supposed to be supervising her minor child, to 

be credible. Beyond this incident, there was also testimony 

that Jeremy went to South Dakota to “sober up,” that his 

father had previously called him an “alcoholic,” and that 

Jessica and others repeatedly expressed their concerns over 

his alcohol use.

Furthermore, while Jeremy argues that he provides a more 

stable environment than Jessica, insomuch as he has maintained a consistent employer and residence in Lyons for several 
- 41 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

years, we disagree. Jeremy testified that he works 14 straight 

days from 6 a.m. until approximately 3 or 4 p.m., averaging 

114 hours every 2 weeks. On the other hand, Jessica testified that her employment opportunity in Illinois provides her 

more structure and time to spend with her children. Instead of 

the long hours she worked at Ronnefeldt Farms, her position 

with PSM in Illinois provides her with a consistent workday 

of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., weekends off, and other benefits such 

as holidays, paid time off, tuition reimbursement, and career 

advancement. While we acknowledge Jessica has a history of 

frequently relocating, she testified that her opportunity with 

PSM would not require her to relocate because it is an expanding company with room for advancement and one central 

office located in Carthage. Regardless, Jessica has maintained 

the ability to adequately care for her children despite the frequent moves.

The third consideration under Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 

257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999), which we give some 

weight to, is the impact the move will have on contact between 

the child and the noncustodial parent. In terms of the relationship of the child with each parent, we find that both parents 

have a close and loving relationship with Ledger. While the 

move certainly will impact Jeremy’s ability to visit Ledger, the 

parenting plan provides for a reasonable visitation schedule 

that allows for him to continue to foster a relationship with 

Ledger. Furthermore, the plan acknowledges that Jessica made 

the decision to move and allocates her 60 percent of the traveltime and expense.

Both parents are close with their extended families and 

have a desire to maintain those relationships in Ledger’s life 

going forward. While we acknowledge that awarding custody to Jessica would strengthen Ledger’s relationship with 

his maternal relatives, at the expense of closer contact with 

his paternal relatives in Nebraska, the district court’s parenting plan provides ample opportunity for both families to be 

involved in his life going forward. We also find it important 
- 42 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

to address Ledger’s relationship with his half brother, Rhett, 

who is Jessica’s child from a previous relationship. Jessica 

testified that Rhett and Ledger love each other, get along, and 

play together and that every time Ledger leaves for visitation, Rhett asks where he is. We do not take lightly the effect 

disrupting this sibling relationship would have on both of the 

minor children.

Overall, we find that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in determining that awarding Jessica custody, and 

permitting removal, was in the best interests of the minor child. 

The district court conducted a thorough analysis of the best 

interests factors in its order, and we do not disturb its findings 

on this appeal.

2. Surname of Minor Child

[13-15] Jeremy’s final assignment of error is the district 

court erred when it ordered that Ledger shall maintain the 

surname of Dutton. We disagree. The question of whether the 

name of a minor child should be changed is determined by 

what is in the best interests of the child. State on behalf of 

Connor H. v. Blake G., 289 Neb. 246, 856 N.W.2d 295 (2014). 

The party seeking the change in surname has the burden of 

proving that the change in surname is in the child’s best interests. Id. Cases considering this question have granted a change 

only when the substantial welfare of the child requires the surname to be changed. See id.

[16] The Supreme Court has set forth a list of nonexclusive factors to consider in determining whether a change of 

surname is in the child’s best interests. See, In re Change of 

Name of Slingsby, 276 Neb. 114, 752 N.W.2d 564 (2008); In re 

Change of Name of Andrews, 235 Neb. 170, 454 N.W.2d 488 

(1990). These factors are (1) misconduct by one of the child’s 

parents; (2) a parent’s failure to support the child; (3) parental failure to maintain contact with the child; (4) the length 

of time that a surname has been used for or by the child; (5) 

whether the child’s surname is different from the surname of 
- 43 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

the child’s custodial parent; (6) a child’s reasonable preference 

for one of the surnames; (7) the effect of the change of the 

child’s surname on the preservation and development of the 

child’s relationship with each parent; (8) the degree of community respect associated with the child’s present surname 

and the proposed surname; (9) the difficulties, harassment, or 

embarrassment that the child may experience from bearing the 

present or proposed surname; and (10) the identification of the 

child as a part of a family unit. Id.

Applying these factors, we find that Jeremy has not met 

his burden of showing that changing Ledger’s surname to 

Westerhold is in his best interests. Nevertheless, we discuss 

each of these factors in turn on our de novo review of a 

requested change in the surname of a minor.

(a) Parental Misconduct

The district court correctly found that there was no evidence 

of misconduct by either parent. While the court acknowledged 

Jeremy’s argument that Jessica “changed her mind at the hospital,” which he maintains on appeal, it correctly noted that 

Jeremy nevertheless decided to sign the acknowledgment of 

paternity with the Dutton surname. Jeremy also argues that 

Jessica engaged in misconduct by withholding parenting time 

from him, but we agree with the district court that her concerns surrounding Jeremy’s alcohol use, especially finding him 

passed out while her other minor child was in his care, were 

justified. This factor is neutral.

(b) Parental Failure to 

Support Child

The district court correctly found that both parents have 

properly supported the child. This factor is neutral.

(c) Parental Failure to Maintain 

Contact With Child

The district court correctly found that both parents have 

maintained contact with the minor child. This factor is neutral.
- 44 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

(d) Length of Time Surname 

Has Been Used

The minor child was born in October 2017 and has maintained the Dutton surname for the duration of those 2 years. 

Nevertheless, due to the young age of the child, this factor is 

a nonissue.

(e) Whether Child’s Surname Is Different 

From Surname of Custodial Parent

The district court granted, and we affirm, the sole care, custody, and control of the minor child with Jessica. This factor 

weighs in favor of maintaining the Dutton surname.

(f) Child’s Reasonable Preference

The minor child is now 2 years old and unable to express a 

reasonable preference for either surname. This is a nonfactor.

(g) Effect on Preservation and Development 

of Child’s Relationship With Each Parent

Jeremy testified that he is requesting Ledger bear the 

Westerhold surname, because “He’s my blood. I mean, granted, 

Dutton is her last name, but it is her adopted last name.” He 

also testified, “It’s only right that [Ledger] has the Westerhold 

last name because I’m the last one to carry on the Westerhold 

name.” We find no merit in these arguments.

It is true that Ledger is Jeremy’s “blood,” but the same is 

true of Jessica. It is irrelevant whether the Dutton surname 

is Jessica’s birth surname or adopted surname. Jessica testified that she was adopted in 2007 and has carried the Dutton 

surname since. In an era where the trivial distinction between 

biological and adopted children means very little, including 

in the eyes of the law, there is no reason why this should 

sway our analysis. We find that Jeremy has been given ample 

opportunity to interact with Ledger through the parenting 

time awarded in the district court’s parenting plan and that 

Ledger’s maintaining the Dutton surname will do little to 
- 45 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

hinder Jeremy’s ability to preserve and develop a relationship with Ledger. This factor weighs against the requested 

name change.

(h) Degree of Community Respect Associated 

With Child’s Present Surname 

and Proposed Surname

There was no evidence introduced to suggest that either the 

Westerhold surname or the Dutton surname carry anything but 

respect within the community. This factor is neutral.

(i) Difficulties, Harassment, or Embarrassment 

That Child May Experience From 

Bearing Either Surname

There is no evidence that bearing either the Westerhold 

surname or the Dutton surname would cause the minor child 

any difficulty, harassment, or embarrassment. This factor is 

a nonissue.

(j) Identification of Child as 

Part of Family Unit

As previously mentioned, custody of the minor child was 

awarded to Jessica, and we affirm this decision. Furthermore, 

Jessica has custody of another minor child from a previous 

relationship who bears the Dutton surname. There is a strong 

interest in having the family unit of Jessica, Ledger, and 

Ledger’s half brother maintain the same surname. This factor 

weighs against the proposed name change.

(k) Conclusion

Based on the factors set forth in the Supreme Court’s decisions of In re Change of Name of Slingsby, 276 Neb. 114, 752 

N.W.2d 564 (2008), and In re Change of Name of Andrews, 

235 Neb. 170, 454 N.W.2d 488 (1990), we find that Jeremy has 

not met his burden of showing that changing Ledger’s surname 

to Westerhold is in his best interests. The minor child shall 

maintain the Dutton surname.
- 46 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

WESTERHOLD v. DUTTON

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 17

VI. CONCLUSION

We conclude that the district court did not err in awarding 

sole legal and physical custody of Ledger to Jessica and permitting Jessica to move with Ledger to the State of Illinois. 

We further find that it was not error for the district court 

to conclude it was in the child’s best interests to maintain 

Jessica’s surname.

Affirmed.