Opinion ID: 4667201
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: A decree of divorce for John Glen Weaver (Glen) and Meaghann Shaw Weaver was entered by the District of Columbia Superior Court in May 2016. Subsequently, both Glen and Meaghann moved to Omaha, Nebraska. Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-711 (Reissue 2016), the foreign decree was registered in Nebraska in May 2017. One child was born of the marriage, in July 2015. The decree incorporated a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement provided that Meaghann shall have sole physical custody of the child, with parenting time for Glen, and that Glen and Meaghann were to have shared joint legal custody. 1. Custody Agreement (a) Glen’s Parenting Time The agreement set forth that Meaghann planned on moving with the child to Omaha and that Glen, who is in the U.S. Air Force, was trying to get stationed there. Under the provisions of the agreement governing physical custody, set forth in paragraph 4.1, when Meaghann and the child moved to Omaha in July 2016, and in the event Glen was also able to be stationed in Omaha, then “the parties will work together to implement gradually, and over time, a schedule in which Glen will visit with [the child] every other weekend (Friday — Sunday) and one dinnertime visit every other week.” Additionally, Glen would have parenting time with the child while she was in daycare when Meaghann was working: Glen may visit with [the child] on occasion while [the child] is in work-related daycare, so long as Glen provides reasonable notice of any such visit, such visits do not take place at Meaghann’s home, and such visits are not disruptive to [the child] and do not interfere with any plans or activities associated with [the child’s] daycare or planned by her daycare provider. Under a separate paragraph governing child care expenses, the parties contemplated that until July 31, 2016, the child’s - 377 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports WEAVER v. WEAVER Cite as 308 Neb. 373 maternal grandmother would be the childcare provider, inasmuch as it described payment to the grandmother for these services. Specifically, the agreement stated that for care provided between August 15, 2015, and July 31, 2016, both Glen and Meaghann were to “have gifted $17,500” to her by June 1, 2016. Starting August 1, 2016, “the parties will contribute toward the cost of [the child’s] work-related childcare, with Glen setting the limit of his contribution toward childcare in Nebraska at . . . $200/week.” By its terms, the agreement did not specifically contemplate at what location the daycare for the child would take place or who would provide the daycare after July 31, 2016. In the event the child were “at some point in the future” enrolled in private school “by mutual agreement of the parties,” Glen would contribute a minimum of $1,000 annually toward private school tuition. If the parties were unable to reach an agreement about whether the child should enroll in private school, they were directed to follow the protocol set forth in the agreement for “Dispute Resolution Regarding Child Custody.” According to the agreement, at the time it was made, Glen had been visiting the child 1 hour every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, from 5 to 6 p.m., plus an additional weekend day each week for 1 to 3 hours. There was a provision in the agreement for Glen to be able to see the child 3 to 4 hours per day during an anticipated upcoming 10-day leave. Beyond that, no provision was set forth in the agreement regarding parenting time during holidays, vacations, or school breaks. Meachann agreed that during the time that both parties lived in the District of Columbia, in addition to accommodating the described schedule for parenting time, she would “consider in good faith requests for incrementally longer visits so long as such visits do not interfere with [the child’s] eating or sleeping schedule.” - 378 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports WEAVER v. WEAVER Cite as 308 Neb. 373 The implementation of the graduated schedule set forth in the agreement was for the eventuality that both parties moved to Omaha and was to occur over a period of 4 months. (b) Modification Provisions Paragraph 4.2 of the agreement, entitled “Modification of Physical Custody,” described that “either party may request a modification to the physical custody” “[u]pon a material and significant change in circumstance of either party, or in the needs or interests of [the child].” Paragraph 4.2 explained that the parties were to “discuss negotiation of a modification of custody in good faith and attempt to agree upon a resolution that is in the best interests of [the child].” In the event Glenn and Meaghann were “unable to agree,” they were to follow the protocols set forth in the agreement for “Dispute Resolution Regarding Child Custody.” In full, paragraph 4.2 provided: Modification of Physical Custody. Upon a material and significant change in circumstance of either party, or in the needs or interests of [the child], either party may request a modification to the physical custody of [the child]. Upon such a request, the parties will discuss the modification in good faith and attempt to agree upon a resolution that is in the best interests of [the child]. If either party believes the terms of this Agreement related to custody are not in [the child’s] best interest at a future time, the parties may discuss negotiation of a modification of custody in good faith and attempt to agree upon a resolution that is in the best interests of [the child]. If the parties are unable to agree, they shall follow the protocols for Dispute Resolution Regarding Child Custody set forth herein. In turn, paragraph 4.4, entitled “Dispute Resolution Regarding Child Custody,” stated that in the event the parties were unable “to resolve the dispute through several discussions on their own, they agree to meet with a mutually agreed - 379 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports WEAVER v. WEAVER Cite as 308 Neb. 373 upon mediator or facilitator, or they will meet with an expert in the field of the dispute (physician, teacher, etc.) to gain more information and advice.” But if they were unable to reach an agreement by these means, either party could petition a court for relief, with the court to apply the “then-governing legal standard to such a request for modification of custody”: In the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement through this dispute resolution process, including agreements related to modifications in the physical custody schedule as provided in Paragraph 4.1 and 4.2 supra, either party may petition a court of competent jurisdiction for relief, provided however that any court of competent jurisdiction shall apply the then-governing legal standard to such a request for modification of custody. (c) Construction Provisions The decree did not set forth any other future contingencies relevant to physical custody. In paragraph 14.15, entitled “Construction of this Agreement,” it was agreed that because both parties and their counsel participated in drafting the agreement, no provision shall be interpreted for or against a party merely because the party or that party’s legal representative drafted the provision. On appeal, Glen asserts that he was not represented by counsel in forming the custody agreement. And the decree sets forth on the signature page that Glen represented himself pro se. The signature page demonstrates that Meaghann, in contrast, was represented by counsel. 2. Complaint to Modify In December 2017, Glen filed a complaint to modify the decree by awarding the parties joint physical custody of the child. A prior complaint to modify filed in February 2017 had been dismissed for lack of prosecution in November 2017. Glen asserted in the complaint that since the time of the decree, there had been material changes in circumstances warranting modification. As relevant here, Glen specifically - 380 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports WEAVER v. WEAVER Cite as 308 Neb. 373 alleged as material changes in circumstances the move to Omaha, the parties’ incomes, and Meaghann’s failure to abide by the decree’s provisions relating to parenting time while the child was in daycare or to abide by provisions of joint legal custody relating to involving Glen in educational, medical, and religious decisions. Further, the complaint alleged that both parties’ work schedules had changed, including a significant change to Glen’s “prior deployment schedule” as a current active duty service member. Meaghann denied the allegations of material changes in circumstances. She alleged that they were all known and taken into consideration at the time of the decree. Meaghann alleged that she had fully complied with the provisions of the decree and that any failure to comply with the parenting plan was solely based on Glen’s actions. The court ordered settlement negotiations or mediation, which were unsuccessful, and a modification hearing was held. 3. Modification Hearing Glen’s attorney argued at the hearing that there was a material change of circumstances and that it was against public policy for the custody arrangement set forth in the decree to remain in effect. Meaghann’s attorney asserted that nothing had changed that was not contemplated by the parties when they entered into the custody agreement. (a) Glen’s Testimony Glen testified that he received orders on June 9, 2016, to be stationed in Omaha. The orders were entered into evidence as an exhibit. Glen currently works 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. At the time of the hearing on the motion to modify, Glen was 4 months from retirement eligibility and did not believe he would be restationed. He has also been under deployment limitations for the past year, since March 2018, due to a malignant melanoma diagnosis. He is currently in remission. Glen was uncertain whether he would choose to - 381 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports WEAVER v. WEAVER Cite as 308 Neb. 373 retire, explaining that he “love[d] serving the Air Force” and would continue to do so if allowed to stay in Omaha, but stating that “[i]f they ask me to move, I will retire.” Glen testified that the scope of his responsibilities in his current position in the Air Force as a colonel supporting a base wing commander is “a lot different” from the position he held before, supporting a four-star general who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. He described that “the level of responsibility and time required and flexibility of schedule [are] greatly different.” Since moving to Omaha, Glen has exercised visitation every other Friday from 4:30 p.m. until Sunday at 4 p.m., as well as every other Wednesday from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. Except for the time outlined in a court order during the pendency of his complaint to modify, Glen had not been allowed any parenting time for a holiday, including Father’s Day, unless it happened to correspond with his scheduled parenting time every other weekend and dinnertime every other Wednesday. Glen admitted that Meaghann has not denied him his scheduled parenting time every other weekend or every other Wednesday, but testified that she had denied him parenting time while the child was in daycare. Glen elaborated that despite his requests, during the past year, Meaghann had allowed him to visit the child only once while she was in daycare. That visit took place at the preschool. Glen testified that he has not been consulted by Meaghann in determining what daycare the child would attend. He was concerned with Meaghann’s unilateral decisionmaking on matters over which they had joint legal custody. In fact, other than learning where the child went to preschool, he did not know how the child was cared for while Meaghann was at work. Glen testified that when he inquired, Meaghann told him only that the child is “in a safe place.” Glen testified that he did not contemplate at the time of the agreement that he would be spending so little time with his child. Meaghann had refused many requests for voluntary - 382 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports WEAVER v. WEAVER Cite as 308 Neb. 373 extensions of parenting time, and Glen noted that a maximum of 2 days in a week did not allow time for him to take the child to see out-of-town relatives and that he considered it generally insufficient time in which to be the kind of father he wished to be. (b) Meaghann’s Testimony Meaghann testified that during the workweek, Meaghann’s mother provides daycare for the child at Meaghann’s home. Two mornings a week, the child is cared for outside the home at a preschool program. The child also has weekly activities such as music, children’s Bible study, and Spanish lessons. Meaghann’s mother provides transportation to and from preschool and activities. Meaghann testified that she had kept Glen abreast of where the child was attending preschool and the details of the preschool curriculum. She also described that she had attempted to engage in discussions with Glen about where the child should attend preschool. She did not address whether she had discussed with Glen or informed Glen of the child’s in-home daycare arrangements. Meaghann testified that she had never done anything to prevent Glen from visiting the child while at preschool. Again, she did not address whether she had rejected Glen’s requests to see the child while being cared for by her mother in Meaghann’s home. Meaghann testified that she had offered to allow Glen to have a meal with the child over various Christmas holidays, but that he did so only once. Meaghann testified more generally with respect to holidays that she had “no objection to [the child’s] seeing [Glen] so long as it’s conducive to her development and to her schedule.” Meaghann admitted she had rejected Glen’s requests to spend as holiday visitation “an extended duration of days out of state.” Meaghann pointed out that there had been weekend visitations that Glen had chosen to forfeit. She was unsure on what grounds, but believed they - 383 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports WEAVER v. WEAVER Cite as 308 Neb. 373 were due to “personal vacations.” Meaghann explained that she has on occasion offered Glen makeup parenting times. Meaghann susggested, in the event the court considered changing parenting time, adding alternating Tuesdays overnight to the alternating Wednesdays at dinnertime, as well as adding holidays and vacation time. Meaghann explained that mediation was unsuccessful in part because she considered Glen’s requests to, for example, have parenting time so that he could spend 7 to 10 days out of the country vacationing with their child to be “extreme” in terms of “many components, international components, duration.” 4. Order Finding More Visitation Would Be in Child’s Best Interests but No Change of Circumstances Warranting Modification Following the trial, in August 2019, the court denied the relief sought in the complaint for modification, taxing to each party his or her own costs and fees. The court found that it would be in the best interests of the child to have more visitation time with Glen. Nevertheless, the court found that no material change in circumstances had occurred and that “all of the matters complained of . . . as a basis for the claim of material change in circumstance were within the contemplation of the parties as shown in the separation and property settlement agreement which is incorporated into the Decree of Dissolution.” The court did not elaborate as to what specific facts formed the basis for this conclusion. Glen filed a motion to alter or amend, asserting he had proved a material change in circumstances. The court denied the motion and Glen appealed. 5. Appeal to Court of Appeals Glen’s appeal was initially taken up by the Court of Appeals. In his appellate brief, Glen argues that the trial court had mistakenly found that under the divorce decree, he was required to prove a material change in circumstances - 384 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports WEAVER v. WEAVER Cite as 308 Neb. 373 in order to obtain a court order changing parenting time. Alternatively, Glen argues that he had demonstrated a material change in circumstances. Finally, Glen proposes that because modification under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(6) (Reissue 2016) is governed by the Parenting Act 1 and the Parenting Act focuses on the best interests of the child and states that the “relationship between the child and each parent should be equally considered,” 2 courts, acting in equity, should not rigidly adhere to the rule, set forth only in case law, that a substantial and material change in circumstances must always be shown before modifying custody. The Court of Appeals held that under the plain language of paragraph 4.2 of the agreement incorporated into the decree, the parties had agreed that modification of physical custody was permissible without a material change in circumstances, so long as the modification was in the best interests of the child. The Court of Appeals reasoned that these terms, incorporated into the foreign decree, had to be given full faith and credit under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1; 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (2012); and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). 3 Furthermore, the Court of Appeals cited to its opinion in Walters v. Walters 4 for the proposition that we will generally enforce valid stipulations in dissolution decrees, including an agreement that physical custody may be modified without showing a material change in circumstances, as long as the modification comports with a child’s best interests. Because the Court of Appeals found that the parties had stipulated to allow modification in the absence of a material 1 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-2920 to 43-2943 (Reissue 2016 & Cum. Supp. 2018). 2 § 43-2921. 3 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1226 to 43-1266 (Reissue 2016 & Cum. Supp. 2018). 4 Walters v. Walters, 12 Neb. App. 340, 673 N.W.2d 585 (2004). - 385 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports WEAVER v. WEAVER Cite as 308 Neb. 373 change in circumstances, the Court of Appeals did not decide whether a court in equity may grant a motion to modify a custody decree without a material change in circumstances when the parties’ agreement incorporated into the decree is silent on the question. And because the Court of Appeals found that the district court had abused its discretion by requiring that Glen prove a material change in circumstances, it did not determine whether the district court erred in its determination that there had been no material change in circumstances. Because the district court found it would be in the child’s best interests to have more time with Glen, the Court of Appeals reversed the order denying modification and remanded the cause with directions for the district court to consider the relief sought in accordance with the best interests of the child. We granted Meaghann’s petition for further review.