Opinion ID: 4530724
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: 1. Custody Modification [3,4] Ordinarily, custody of a minor child will not be modified unless there has been a material change in circumstances showing either that the custodial parent is unfit or that the best interests of the child require such action. 4 We have described this showing as a two-step process: First, the party seeking modification must show a material change in circumstances, occurring after the entry of the previous custody order and 2 VanSkiver v. VanSkiver, 303 Neb. 664, 930 N.W.2d 569 (2019). 3 State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933, 932 N.W.2d 692 (2019). 4 Whilde v. Whilde, 298 Neb. 473, 904 N.W.2d 695 (2017); Hopkins v. Hopkins, 294 Neb. 417, 883 N.W.2d 363 (2016). - 627 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports JONES v. JONES Cite as 305 Neb. 615 affecting the best interests of the child. 5 Next, the party seeking modification must prove that changing the child’s custody is in the child’s best interests. 6 Here, neither parent claimed the other was unfit. Consequently, we focus our review on whether Curtis has shown a material change in circumstances occurring after the 2011 modification and affecting Kasey’s best interests, and whether Curtis proved that changing the custody arrangement was in Kasey’s best interests. (a) Material Change in Circumstances [5,6] We have long described a material change in circumstances as the occurrence of something which, had it been known to the dissolution court at the time of the initial decree, would have persuaded the court to decree differently. 7 We have also explained that if a change in custody is to be made, it should appear to the court that the material change in circumstances is more or less permanent or continuous and not merely transitory or temporary. 8 [7] We begin by noting, as did the Court of Appeals, that the district court made express factual findings concerning changes in Mary’s employment and housing since the 2011 custody modification, but its order made no express finding that those changes were material and affected Kasey’s best interests. The absence of this express finding is not dispositive, however, because we have recognized that even when a finding of a material change in circumstances is not expressly made by the trial court, an appellate court, in its de 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 VanSkiver, supra note 2; State on behalf of Jakai C. v. Tiffany M., 292 Neb. 68, 871 N.W.2d 230 (2015); Schrag v. Spear, 290 Neb. 98, 858 N.W.2d 865 (2015); Heistand v. Heistand, 267 Neb. 300, 673 N.W.2d 541 (2004); Swenson v. Swenson, 254 Neb. 242, 575 N.W.2d 612 (1998). 8 Hoschar v. Hoschar, 220 Neb. 913, 374 N.W.2d 64 (1985), disapproved on other grounds, Parker v. Parker, 234 Neb. 167, 449 N.W.2d 553 (1989). - 628 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports JONES v. JONES Cite as 305 Neb. 615 novo review, may make such a finding if the evidence supports it. 9 Having reviewed the record de novo, we find ample evidence that Mary’s continuous unemployment and housing instability combined to present a material change in circumstances after the 2011 modification that affected Kasey’s best interests. (i) Continuous Unemployment The Court of Appeals concluded that Mary’s unemployment after the 2011 modification did not amount to a material change in circumstances, reasoning that she experienced periods of unemployment before the 2011 modification too. It is true that Mary experienced periods of unemployment before 2011, but the evidence generally showed those periods were sporadic and included several years when Mary intentionally left the workforce to further her education. When the stipulated modification was entered in 2011, Mary had completed her degree in paralegal studies and was gainfully employed as a paralegal. She changed employers several times thereafter, but generally held a steady job in the legal field until 2014, when her employment situation changed significantly. [8] From 2014 until shortly before trial in 2017, Mary was almost continuously unemployed and her only source of income was child support. This lengthy period of unemployment differed from the past, in that Mary was not unemployed because she was changing jobs or furthering her education. Mary did start working shortly before trial in this case, but the jobs were part time and temporary and did not suggest a commitment to returning to stable employment. And as a general rule, when determining whether the custody of a minor child should be changed, the evidence of the custodial parent’s behavior during the year or so before the hearing on the complaint to modify is considered most significant. 10 9 Parker, supra note 8. 10 See Heistand, supra note 7. - 629 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports JONES v. JONES Cite as 305 Neb. 615 Despite Mary’s history of sporadic and temporary unemployment before the custody modification in 2011, we agree with the district court that the continuous unemployment she experienced after 2014 amounted to a material change in circumstances. And it was a change in circumstances that negatively impacted her ability to provide safe and stable housing for Kasey, a concern we discuss next. (ii) Housing The Court of Appeals expressed concern over Mary’s housing instability and the questionable character of some of the individuals with whom she resided after the 2011 modification. But it ultimately concluded this evidence did not support a material change in circumstances, reasoning there was no evidence that the frequent moves or the presence of questionable individuals in the home “had any actual negative impact on Kasey.” 11 Our de novo review leads us to a different conclusion. We find it significant that at the time of the stipulated custody modification in 2011, Mary lived in her own residence and appeared to be providing a safe and stable living environment for Kasey. Someone from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services was living with her around the clock to make sure she “stayed on the straight and narrow,” and there was no evidence of crime or violence in the home. Since that time, Mary’s housing situation has changed significantly. She has been evicted twice for nonpayment of rent. Her chronic unemployment left her unable to afford safe and stable housing, and she became dependent on the generosity of family and friends for a place to live. Mary moved residences four times in 2015 alone, and since 2011, she has lived with approximately 13 different people. Mary admits some of the people with whom she lived were not a good influence on Kasey, and the evidence bears that out. 11 Jones, supra note 1 at . - 630 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports JONES v. JONES Cite as 305 Neb. 615 For several years after the 2011 custody modification, Mary lived with a man who used illegal substances and who was verbally, mentally, and physically abusive to her. And from 2015 until a few months before trial in 2017, Mary lived with her adult son, who had a violent temper, was an alcoholic, used illegal drugs, and allowed his friends to live with them for weeks at a time. At the time of trial, Mary was living with her adult daughter, and while the environment in that home was considerably safer than Mary’s prior residence, she admitted the arrangement was temporary. Mary was hopeful her circumstances would improve in the future, but she described no concrete plans for more permanent housing. Mary’s post-2011 living conditions were unstable and regularly exposed Kasey to living alongside people who were verbally and physically abusive to Mary, used illegal drugs, engaged in criminal activity, and had violent tempers. Mary did not believe that Kasey was affected by living in this environment, because he was still doing well in school, had positive relationships with his parents and peers, and regularly attended church with her. But we have rejected the suggestion that a parent must show that actual harm has befallen a child in order to establish that a modification of custody due to a material change in circumstances would be in the child’s best interests. 12 And there is little doubt that if this unsafe and unstable living environment had existed and been brought to the attention of the court at the time of the 2011 custody modification, it would have persuaded the court to decree differently. On this record, we find that Curtis met his burden of proving that Mary’s continuous unemployment and chronic housing instability after the 2011 modification was a material change in circumstances that affected Kasey’s best interests. We next consider whether the modified custody arrangement ordered by the district court was in Kasey’s best interests. 13 12 See Schrag, supra note 7. 13 See Hopkins, supra note 4. - 631 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports JONES v. JONES Cite as 305 Neb. 615 (b) Best Interests of Child [9] When determining the best interests of the child in the context of custody, a court must consider, at a minimum, (1) the relationship of the minor child to each parent prior to the commencement of the action; (2) the desires and wishes of a sufficiently mature child, if based on sound reasoning; (3) the general health, welfare, and social behavior of the child; (4) credible evidence of abuse inflicted on any family or household member; and (5) credible evidence of child abuse or neglect or domestic intimate partner abuse. 14 Other relevant considerations include stability in the child’s routine, minimalization of contact and conflict between the parents, and the general nature and health of the individual child. 15 No single factor is determinative, and different factors may weigh more heavily in the court’s analysis, depending on the evidence presented in each case. The one constant is that the child’s best interests are always the standard by which any custody or parenting time determination is made. 16 Here, the district court found it was in Kasey’s best interests for Curtis to have primary physical custody, subject to Mary’s liberal parenting time on a 10/4 schedule during the school year and a week-on-week-off schedule during summer break. After our de novo review, we cannot find this was an abuse of discretion. Since the 2011 modification, Curtis has had stable employment and a consistently safe and stable living environment for raising children; Mary has not. The district court left joint legal custody in place with additional provisions for resolving disputes, but placed primary physical custody with Curtis. It also changed the parenting time schedule to reduce the number of overnights with Mary during the school year, while still 14 Jeffery T., supra note 3. See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2923(6) (Reissue 2016). 15 See Jeffery T., supra note 3. 16 See id. - 632 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports JONES v. JONES Cite as 305 Neb. 615 affording liberal parenting time and allowing Kasey to spend equal time with both his parents over the summer months. We agree such a custody and parenting time arrangement is in Kasey’s best interests. (c) Disposition We thus reverse the Court of Appeals’ finding that Curtis did not prove a material change in circumstances justifying modification of physical custody, and we remand the cause with directions to affirm the district court’s modification of physical custody. We also direct the Court of Appeals to affirm the modified parenting plan approved by the district court, with two caveats. First, for the sake of clarity, we direct the parenting plan be corrected to reflect that the parties maintain joint legal custody of Kasey, but that in the event they reach impasse and are unable to make a joint decision, Curtis shall have final say. Second, because we agree with the Court of Appeals that the record in this case does not support the need for a safety plan, we direct the safety plan provisions be stricken from the parenting plan. 2. Child Support Order The district court terminated Curtis’ monthly child support obligation and ordered Mary to pay nominal child support of $10 per month. No party takes issue with the amount of support ordered, but when the case was before the Court of Appeals, Mary assigned that it was error not to attach a child support worksheet to the order of modification showing how the support was calculated. Given the Court of Appeals’ disposition, it did not reach this assignment of error. We exercise our discretion to consider it now, rather than directing consideration on remand. [10,11] Neb. Ct. R. § 4-203(E) (rev. 2020) of the child support guidelines provides that “[a]ll orders for child support, including modifications, must include a basic income and support calculation worksheet 1, and if used, worksheet 2 or 3.” - 633 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports JONES v. JONES Cite as 305 Neb. 615 We have been clear that “[a]ll orders concerning child support, including modifications, should include the appropriate child support worksheets.” 17 The appellate courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of adhering to this requirement, 18 explaining that attaching the worksheet allows the trial court to show the parties, and the appellate courts, that it has “‘done the math’” required by the child support guidelines. 19 [12] In this case, the court ordered nominal support pursuant to the earlier version of Neb. Ct. R. § 4-209 (rev. 2020) of the child support guidelines, which provides that “[e]ven in very low income cases, except in cases of disability or incarceration where a lower amount may be justified, a minimum monthly support of $50, or 10 percent of the obligor’s net income, whichever is greater, per month should be set.” The purpose of setting nominal support is to maintain information on the obligor in the child support system and, “hopefully, encourage such person to understand the necessity, duty, and importance of supporting his or her children.” 20 We have not previously addressed whether a child support worksheet is required even when ordering nominal support under § 4-209, but we see no principled reason to depart from the settled rule, even in very low income cases. Admittedly, when nominal support is ordered in the recommended amount of $50, there is very little math to show. But in this case, it is not clear whether the $10 support figure was calculated based on a finding regarding Mary’s net income or whether the court concluded that an amount lower than the recommended minimum was justified in this case. And of course, whenever there is a deviation from the child support guidelines, either the 17 Rutherford v. Rutherford, 277 Neb. 301, 305, 761 N.W.2d 922, 926 (2009). 18 Id. 19 See Stewart v. Stewart, 9 Neb. App. 431, 434, 613 N.W.2d 486, 489 (2000). See, also, Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76, 907 N.W.2d 275 (2018); Molina v. Salgado-Bustamante, 21 Neb. App. 75, 837 N.W.2d 553 (2013). 20 § 4-209. - 634 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports JONES v. JONES Cite as 305 Neb. 615 reason for the deviation must “be contained in the findings portion of the decree or order, or worksheet 5 should be completed by the court and filed in the court file.” 21 [13] Because the absence of a child support worksheet requires the parties and appellate courts to speculate about the trial court’s conclusions and calculations in awarding support, we hold that even in very low income cases, courts awarding nominal support under § 4-209 should attach a child support worksheet. And the reason for any deviation from the minimum support amounts required by § 4-209 should be contained either in the court’s decree or order or on worksheet 5. On remand, we direct the Court of Appeals to remand the matter to the district court with directions to prepare and attach an appropriate child support worksheet to the order of modification.