Opinion ID: 1710096
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: rizzo's testimony

Text: Gomez contends that the district court erred in allowing Rizzo to testify because Rizzo had information regarding work product of Gomez' former attorney that may have been communicated to the Savages' attorney. Because of this court's de novo review, the trial court's consideration of improper evidence would not, by itself, require reversal. Rather, this court tries factual questions de novo on the record and does not consider any impermissible or improper evidence. See In re Interest of A.H., 237 Neb. 797, 467 N.W.2d 682 (1991). Assuming arguendo that Gomez is correct and Rizzo's testimony was impermissible, an issue we do not have to address, we will consider the issue of Gomez' fitness as a parent without considering Rizzo's testimony.