Kenner v. Battershaw ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    05/31/2016 09:06 AM CDT
    - 58 -
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals
    24 Nebraska A ppellate R eports
    KENNER v. BATTERSHAW
    Cite as 
    24 Neb. Ct. App. 58
    Lacey M. K enner, appellant, v.
    Ryan James Battershaw, appellee.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed May 31, 2016.    No. A-15-776.
    1.	 Child Custody: Appeal and Error. Child custody determinations are
    matters initially entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and
    although reviewed de novo on the record, the trial court’s determination
    will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
    2.	 Child Custody. Ordinarily, custody of a minor child will not be modi-
    fied unless there has been a material change in circumstances showing
    that the custodial parent is unfit or that the best interests of the child
    require such action.
    3.	 Modification of Decree: Child Custody: Proof. Before custody of a
    minor child may be modified based upon a material change in circum-
    stances, it must be shown that the modification is in the best interests of
    the child.
    4.	 Child Custody. Courts determining custody and parenting arrangements
    must consider (1) the relationship of the minor child to each parent prior
    to the commencement of the action or any subsequent hearing; (2) the
    desires and wishes of the minor child, if of an age of comprehension but
    regardless of chronological age, when such desires and wishes are based
    on sound reasoning; (3) the general health, welfare, and social behavior
    of the minor child; (4) credible evidence of abuse inflicted on any fam-
    ily or household member; and (5) credible evidence of child abuse or
    neglect or domestic intimate partner abuse.
    5.	 ____. In addition to statutory “best interests” factors, 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 relation-
    ship 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 disrupt-
    ing an existing relationship; the attitude and stability of each parent’s
    - 59 -
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals
    24 Nebraska A ppellate R eports
    KENNER v. BATTERSHAW
    Cite as 
    24 Neb. Ct. App. 58
    character; and the parental capacity to provide physical care and satisfy
    the educational needs of the child.
    6.	 ____. The desires and wishes of the minor child are not determinative
    of custody but are just a factor to be considered by the trial court, when
    the child is of an age of comprehension and bases those desires on
    sound reasoning.
    Appeal from the District Court for Cherry County: M ark D.
    Kozisek, Judge. Affirmed.
    Loralea L. Frank and Bergan E. Schumacher, of Bruner
    Frank, L.L.C., for appellant.
    Michael S. Borders, of Borders Law Office, for appellee.
    Moore, Chief Judge, and Inbody and R iedmann, Judges.
    R iedmann, Judge.
    INTRODUCTION
    Lacey M. Kenner appeals from an order of the district court
    for Cherry County modifying a paternity decree and awarding
    Ryan James Battershaw custody of the parties’ minor child.
    After a de novo review of the record, we find that the trial
    court did not abuse its discretion, and accordingly, we affirm
    its modification order.
    BACKGROUND
    Kenner and Battershaw have one son, Brayden Battershaw,
    who is the subject of the custody modification order before
    us. He was born in December 2006. Although Kenner and
    Battershaw never married, the three of them lived together for
    approximately 11⁄2 years after Brayden was born. A decree of
    paternity was entered in 2010, and a stipulated agreement and
    modified parenting plan was entered in 2012. The parties have
    followed the 2012 parenting plan since it was entered; Brayden
    lives with Kenner a majority of the time, but Battershaw exer-
    cises significant parenting time for 1 full week each month and
    every other weekend during the school year. In the summer, the
    parties each exercise 6 weeks of parenting time.
    - 60 -
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals
    24 Nebraska A ppellate R eports
    KENNER v. BATTERSHAW
    Cite as 
    24 Neb. Ct. App. 58
    At the time of trial, Kenner and Battershaw had each mar-
    ried other people, and Brayden has a warm, bonded relation-
    ship with both parents and both stepparents. Kenner also has
    two younger children with her husband. With Kenner and her
    husband, Brayden enjoys riding horses, “playing with Legos,”
    going to church, swimming, fencing, haying, playing baseball,
    and entering rodeos. With Battershaw and his wife, Brayden
    enjoys playing board games and video games, fishing, hunting,
    swimming, playing basketball, spending time outdoors, going
    on road trips, and building cars. Battershaw has also recently
    coached him in summer soccer and baseball. Brayden was
    described during testimony as a happy child who makes friends
    easily and is socially involved. He also has excellent reports
    from school.
    Kenner and Battershaw each have routines when parenting
    their son. Kenner is a stay-at-home mother and is available to
    care for him and his half siblings after school and in the sum-
    mers. Battershaw and his wife both work full time. Battershaw
    works at a tire store, and his wife works at a law office. After
    school or during the day in the summertime when Battershaw
    is working, Brayden can go to the store with his father, go
    to his stepmother’s office, read books in the library across
    the street from the office, or spend time with other family in
    Valentine, Nebraska, where Battershaw lives.
    At the time the current parenting schedule was agreed to and
    entered, Battershaw lived in Valentine and Kenner lived on a
    ranch south of Wood Lake, Nebraska, which is near Valentine.
    Beginning in August 2014, Kenner’s husband had disagree-
    ments with his father about the operations of the family ranch
    and ultimately lost his job working there. Both parties and
    their spouses searched for a new source of employment for
    Kenner’s husband in the Valentine area; however, they were
    unable to find employment in that area that met the family’s
    income, housing, and livestock housing needs. Kenner’s hus-
    band eventually obtained employment in Emmett, Nebraska,
    which is approximately a 11⁄2-hour drive from the family’s
    - 61 -
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals
    24 Nebraska A ppellate R eports
    KENNER v. BATTERSHAW
    Cite as 
    24 Neb. Ct. App. 58
    former home. Kenner’s husband moved to and began employ-
    ment in Emmett in January 2015.
    Because of the distance of the Kenners’ move, Kenner filed
    a complaint to modify the parties’ paternity decree and cus-
    tody arrangement, seeking full physical and legal custody of
    Brayden and asking to remove Battershaw’s full week each
    month from the parties’ parenting time schedule. Battershaw
    answered and filed a countercomplaint for modification also
    seeking custody of Brayden. While awaiting trial on her
    motion to modify, Kenner rented a home in Wood Lake so that
    Brayden could finish the school year there and continue the
    parties’ current parenting plan. The family spent weekends in
    Emmett during the school year. At the end of the school year,
    Kenner moved to Emmett with her husband, Brayden, and her
    other children.
    Both Kenner and Battershaw testified at trial that they
    are able to provide for their son’s needs in their homes.
    If Brayden were to live with Battershaw, he would attend
    school in Valentine. Although Battershaw could continue to
    provide transportation for him to school in Wood Lake, that
    school has only four students enrolled, and the Battershaws
    own a home across the street from the elementary school in
    Valentine. If Brayden lived with the Kenners, he would live
    near the ranch outside Emmett and attend school in Atkinson,
    Nebraska.
    During the trial, the court also conducted an in camera inter-
    view with Brayden and asked, among other things, whether
    he had a preference as to custody. We have considered the
    contents of this sealed interview in our de novo review of
    the record.
    At the close of evidence, the district court took the matter
    under advisement, noting the difficulty of having to award
    custody to one parent or the other given what a good job the
    parents had done raising their son under their prior coparenting
    plan. In a written order modifying the decree, the district court
    awarded custody to Battershaw, and Kenner appeals.
    - 62 -
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals
    24 Nebraska A ppellate R eports
    KENNER v. BATTERSHAW
    Cite as 
    24 Neb. Ct. App. 58
    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
    Kenner assigns on appeal that the district court abused its
    discretion when it granted Battershaw custody of Brayden.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1] Child custody determinations are matters initially
    entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and although
    reviewed de novo on the record, the trial court’s determina-
    tion will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
    Schrag v. Spear, 
    290 Neb. 98
    , 
    858 N.W.2d 865
    (2015). An
    abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court bases its decision
    upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action
    is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence.
    
    Id. A judicial
    abuse of discretion requires that the reasons or
    rulings of the trial court be clearly untenable insofar as they
    unfairly deprive a litigant of a substantial right and a just
    result. 
    Id. ANALYSIS Change
    of Circumstances.
    [2] Ordinarily, custody of a minor child will not be modified
    unless there has been a material change in circumstances show-
    ing that the custodial parent is unfit or that the best interests of
    the child require such action. Schrag v. 
    Spear, supra
    . A material
    change in circumstances means 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. 
    Id. While even
    an out-of-state move does not automatically
    constitute a change of circumstances, a significant move may
    be a change of circumstances warranting modification depend-
    ing upon other evidence. See 
    id. In this
    case, the parties’
    agreed parenting plan involved Brayden spending every other
    weekend and 1 full week per month with Battershaw. See 
    id. Kenner’s move
    100 miles away from Battershaw makes it
    impractical to impossible for the parties to maintain this sched-
    ule, particularly during the school year.
    - 63 -
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals
    24 Nebraska A ppellate R eports
    KENNER v. BATTERSHAW
    Cite as 
    24 Neb. Ct. App. 58
    The district court determined that the parties’ prior par-
    enting plan constituted a joint physical custody plan and
    that modification was necessary to accommodate the move.
    Referencing Hill v. Hill, 
    20 Neb. Ct. App. 528
    , 
    827 N.W.2d 304
    (2013), the district court found that although the parties’ stipu-
    lated parenting plan stated that Kenner previously had physical
    custody of Brayden, in fact the parties’ fairly even split of time
    and share of day-to-day parenting constituted a joint physical
    custody arrangement. Neither party appeals this determination.
    The parties asserted, and the district court agreed, that the
    move at issue in this case makes the custody plan of the prior
    decree unworkable and constitutes a change in circumstances
    warranting a custody modification. We agree.
    Best Interests.
    Kenner argues that the district court abused its discretion
    in determining that the best interests of Brayden were met by
    granting custody to Battershaw. We disagree.
    [3,4] Before custody may be modified based upon a material
    change in circumstances, it must be shown that the modifica-
    tion is in the best interests of the child. Schrag v. 
    Spear, supra
    .
    Courts determining custody and parenting arrangements must
    consider (1) the relationship of the minor child to each parent
    prior to the commencement of the action or any subsequent
    hearing; (2) the desires and wishes of the minor child, if of
    an age of comprehension but regardless of chronological age,
    when such desires and wishes are based on sound reasoning;
    (3) the general health, welfare, and social behavior of the
    minor 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. Neb.
    Rev. Stat. § 43-2923 (Cum. Supp. 2014).
    [5] In addition to these statutory “best interests” factors, a
    court making a child custody determination may consider mat-
    ters such as the moral fitness of the child’s parents, including
    the parents’ sexual conduct; respective environments offered
    - 64 -
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals
    24 Nebraska A ppellate R eports
    KENNER v. BATTERSHAW
    Cite as 
    24 Neb. Ct. App. 58
    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).
    In this case, the evidence at trial demonstrates that Brayden
    has strong connections to each of his parents and stepparents.
    He enjoys activities with both households. Brayden appears to
    be in generally good health and thriving in school under the
    parties’ prior coparenting arrangement. The record contains no
    evidence of abuse by either party, nor any suggestion of paren-
    tal unfitness.
    [6] The district court noted that during the in camera
    interview, Brayden expressed a preference to live and attend
    school in Valentine, with his father. Section 43-2923 provides
    for consideration of the child’s wishes if the child is of an
    age of comprehension and the child’s reasoning is sound.
    Kenner argues that an 8-year-old child is not old enough to
    express an opinion that may be considered by the court. We
    disagree. Kenner cites no authority for the proposition that
    an 8-year-old child may not be “of an age of comprehension”
    as required by the statute for the court to consider a child’s
    preference. See § 43-2923. The record reveals that the minor
    child was 81⁄2 years old at the time of trial. In his interview,
    Brayden expressed an understanding of the complexity of the
    decision and articulated relevant components of consideration,
    including routines, scheduling, proximity to activities, and the
    home and school environments. Of course, the desires and
    wishes of the minor child are not determinative of custody but
    are just a factor to be considered by the trial court, when the
    child is of an age of comprehension and bases those desires
    on sound reasoning. See Adams v. Adams, 
    13 Neb. Ct. App. 276
    ,
    
    691 N.W.2d 541
    (2005). However, we see no evidence that
    - 65 -
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals
    24 Nebraska A ppellate R eports
    KENNER v. BATTERSHAW
    Cite as 
    24 Neb. Ct. App. 58
    the district court regarded this factor as determinative, as
    Kenner argues.
    The remaining factors to be considered encompass the sta-
    bility, environment, and relationships to be impacted by either
    custody choice. Schrag v. 
    Spear, supra
    . In either household,
    Brayden would experience some change and disruption of the
    parties’ prior schedule, while also enjoying certain kinds of
    stability. Bradyen has more ties to the Valentine area, where
    he has previously lived, than to the Emmett area, although he
    has some acquaintances in both locations. We also note that
    Brayden has previously spent more time living with his mother
    and siblings, but has spent significant time being parented
    day-to-day by both parents. While all testimony suggested that
    both homes are emotionally nurturing, the home environments
    have differences. In particular, Brayden has younger half sib-
    lings at Kenner’s home and no siblings at Battershaw’s home.
    Testimony suggested benefits both to being raised among sib-
    lings and to receiving the attention of an only child. In short,
    the record revealed that either parent could provide for the
    child emotionally and physically.
    Kenner argues that the district court should have given
    more weight to keeping Brayden in a home with his half sib-
    lings. In so arguing, she notes that it is generally sound public
    policy to keep children together when a marriage is dissolved.
    Ziebarth v. Ziebarth, 
    238 Neb. 545
    , 
    471 N.W.2d 450
    (1991).
    However, this is not a dissolution of marriage case where the
    custody of all children is being determined as a result of the
    parties’ divorce. Only Brayden’s custody is being determined
    by these proceedings, and a rule requiring him to be kept with
    his half siblings would mean that a parent having children
    with a former or subsequent spouse would automatically give
    that parent preferred status. While a bond with half siblings
    is certainly an emotional environmental factor that the dis-
    trict court should take into consideration, the focus is on the
    relationship between the siblings and whether separation will
    have a detrimental effect on the child. See Ritter v. Ritter,
    - 66 -
    Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals
    24 Nebraska A ppellate R eports
    KENNER v. BATTERSHAW
    Cite as 
    24 Neb. Ct. App. 58
    234 Neb. 203
    , 
    450 N.W.2d 204
    (1990). The district court’s
    order evinces that it considered the relationship between the
    children and concluded that separation of Brayden from his
    half siblings would not be detrimental. We disagree with the
    argument that the district court erred in inadequately consider-
    ing this factor.
    Given the record before us, we cannot find that the district
    court abused its discretion in awarding custody to Battershaw.
    An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court bases its
    decision upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or
    if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason,
    and evidence. Schrag v. Spear, 
    290 Neb. 98
    , 
    858 N.W.2d 865
    (2015). A judicial abuse of discretion requires that the reasons
    or rulings of the trial court be clearly untenable insofar as
    they unfairly deprive a litigant of a substantial right and a just
    result. 
    Id. In this
    case, the district court detailed its thought-
    ful consideration of the evidence in a difficult case. Following
    a careful de novo review of the record, we find no abuse
    of discretion.
    CONCLUSION
    Following a de novo review of the record, we find no
    abuse of discretion by the district court and accordingly affirm
    its order.
    A ffirmed.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-15-776

Filed Date: 5/31/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021