Snodgrass v. Snodgrass ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                           IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
    SNODGRASS V. SNODGRASS
    NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
    AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).
    LAURA A. SNODGRASS, NOW KNOWN AS LAURA A. TOMCZAK, APPELLANT,
    V.
    BRYAN S. SNODGRASS, APPELLEE.
    Filed October 28, 2014.    No. A-13-917.
    Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: KIMBERLY MILLER PANKONIN,
    Judge. Affirmed.
    Kelly T. Shattuck, of Vacanti Shattuck, for appellant.
    John A. Kinney and Jill M. Mason, of Kinney Law, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.
    INBODY, RIEDMANN, and BISHOP, Judges.
    BISHOP, Judge.
    I. INTRODUCTION
    Laura A. Snodgrass, now known as Laura A. Tomczak, appeals from an order of the
    district court for Douglas County denying her request to remove the parties’ minor children to
    Alabama. The district court found that Laura had a legitimate reason for moving to Alabama
    (husband’s new job); however, it found that the move would not be in the children’s best
    interests. Although we note that preventing a primary custodial parent from moving with her
    children to live with her new spouse in another state seems harsh, our standard of review only
    allows this court to reverse in such matters upon finding an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
    Since we cannot say the district court abused its discretion, we affirm.
    II. BACKGROUND
    Laura and Bryan S. Snodgrass were married in December 2003 and were divorced
    pursuant to a decree of dissolution filed in Gage County District Court in May 2007. Two
    children were born during the marriage, Elle Snodgrass, born in September 2004, and Evan
    -1-
    Snodgrass, born in April 2006. In the decree, and upon agreement of the parties, the district court
    awarded custody of Elle and Evan to Laura, subject to Bryan’s specific rights to parenting time.
    In November 2008, Laura began a relationship with Joshua Tomczak (Joshua). When
    they began their relationship, Joshua worked at Novartis Consumer Health (Novartis) in Lincoln.
    Joshua began living with Laura and the children in 2010. Laura and Joshua were married in
    November 2012. Also in November, Joshua moved to Huntsville, Alabama, and began working
    for Qualitest Pharmaceuticals (Qualitest).
    On January 29, 2013, Laura filed a “Complaint for Modification,” in Gage County
    District Court requesting permission to remove the minor children from Nebraska to Alabama, so
    that she and her husband could pursue an “excellent job opportunity in Huntsville, Alabama,
    which includes higher pay, job security and a better future.” Laura also alleged that both parties’
    incomes had changed since the original divorce decree, warranting an adjustment/modification of
    the child support order. Also on January 29, Laura filed a “Motion to Transfer Case to a More
    Convenient Venue,” and requested the action be transferred to Douglas County as neither Laura
    nor Bryan were living in Gage County--Laura was living in Douglas County and Bryan was
    living in Lancaster County. On February 28, the Gage County District Court filed its “Order to
    Transfer to More Convenient Forum,” granting Laura’s request to transfer the action to Douglas
    County District Court.
    On March 11, 2013, Bryan filed his “Answer and Counter-Complaint.” In his answer,
    Bryan generally denied Laura’s allegations set forth in her Complaint for Modification. In his
    “counter-complaint,” Bryan alleged that the parties should be awarded joint physical custody of
    the children, or in the alternative, that he should be awarded primary physical custody if Laura
    moved out of Nebraska. Bryan also sought a review of child support (if there was a change in
    custody) and an award of attorney fees. On March 13, Laura replied, and generally denied
    Bryan’s allegations. On July 26, Bryan filed an “Amended Answer and Counter-Complaint,”
    making additional allegations, but essentially sought the same relief as in his original “Answer
    and Counter-Complaint.” On July 31, Laura replied, and generally denied Bryan’s allegations.
    Trial was held on August 13 and 16, 2013. At trial, both Laura and Bryan presented
    evidence which they assert supported their respective positions on removal and custody.
    Laura’s husband, Joshua, testified that he works for Qualitest in Huntsville, earning
    $75,563 per year. Joshua previously worked for Novartis in Lincoln, and he testified that
    according to his 2012 W-2 (which was received into evidence), he earned $64,938 that year. (We
    note that it is unclear whether this is representative of a full year’s salary in light of his testimony
    that he moved to Alabama in November.) Joshua testified the FDA caught Novartis cutting
    corners in June 2011 and that on December 19, Novartis voluntarily stopped producing products
    due to concerns regarding the quality of their products. Joshua’s job at Novartis directly related
    to helping Novartis comply with FDA rules. Novartis was still closed during the summer of
    2012, 6 to 9 months after the original shutdown. Joshua testified that he started getting concerned
    about the site’s ability to maintain a workforce and did not believe there was a long-term future
    for his position. He began searching for jobs in Nebraska, limiting himself to the Lincoln and
    Omaha areas, and applied with three companies; he did not get any interviews. Joshua, who has a
    bachelor’s degree in biochemistry, testified that with his degree and area of focus (quality
    -2-
    control/quality assurance), there are not a lot of job opportunities in and around Omaha, aside
    from working for a few pharmaceutical companies.
    Joshua was approached by a recruiter for Qualitest in mid-September 2012 regarding a
    quality assurance position, similar to the position he held at Novartis. He had a telephone
    interview at the beginning of October and an onsite interview in mid- to late October, and he
    accepted the job offer in early November. He testified that he did not take the job in Alabama
    just because it paid more, but that he also took the job because of advancement opportunities and
    because he felt there was more job security at Qualitest. Joshua moved to Alabama in November
    without Laura. He testified that when he left Novartis, the company was still not producing
    product.
    Laura testified that she has always been the primary caretaker of Elle and Evan. She helps
    them with their homework and regularly attends parent-teacher conferences. She takes care of all
    of the children’s medical appointments.
    Laura took courses at a community college in Lincoln from 2008 through 2011, but she
    never finished her associate’s degree. She was unemployed at the time of trial. She had
    previously worked at a company from May to November 2012, earning $12.25 per hour, but she
    lost her job when the company went out of business. She had been searching for jobs in
    Nebraska and had a few interviews, but no offers. Laura testified that if the court denies the
    removal, she will stay in Elkhorn and Joshua will stay in Alabama. If that happens, Laura
    testified that she would have to work and the children would need care before and after school.
    Laura had not pursued employment in Alabama, because if allowed to move, she plans to be a
    stay-at-home mother.
    Laura has a home in Elkhorn, but she did not elaborate as to details. Laura and Joshua
    have not yet purchased a home in Alabama. However, Joshua testified that he had been
    preapproved for a $280,000 home loan. They plan on buying a home in Madison, Alabama,
    which is a suburb of Huntsville. Laura testified that the home they plan to purchase would be
    bigger than their home in Elkhorn (3,000 versus 2,000 square feet). Joshua testified that the new
    home would be “roughly the same or maybe a little bit more in square footage” than their home
    in Nebraska. Laura testified that the neighborhoods in Madison and Elkhorn are “very similar.”
    Laura testified that she researched schools in Huntsville and Madison and that they were “the
    same or better” than the schools in Elkhorn, where the children currently attend.
    Laura testified that if she were allowed to move to Alabama, she proposed allowing
    Bryan 6 to 8 weeks of summer parenting time and suggested Bryan be entitled to every spring
    break, every Thanksgiving holiday, and half of the Christmas holiday every year. Laura
    recognized that schedules would be subject to travel issues and said she would take all of the
    responsibility for transporting the children for Bryan’s parenting time--driving the children to
    Nebraska, a 14- to 15-hour drive each way, at a cost of approximately $300 round trip for gas
    and food. Laura also proposed daily communication between Bryan and the children via
    telephone calls, “Skype,” or other electronic communication. Additionally, Bryan would be able
    to visit the children in Alabama anytime he wishes (at his own expense), as long as he provides
    reasonable advanced notice.
    Bryan testified that he has had the same girlfriend for the past 7 years, but they do not
    live together. Bryan lives in a two-bedroom apartment in Lincoln, but if he got custody of the
    -3-
    children, he would get a bigger place. Bryan testified that he has parenting time with Elle and
    Evan every other weekend, 5 weeks in the summers, and alternating holidays.
    Bryan does not think that it is in the children’s best interests to move to Alabama,
    because if the children move, there would be no parenting plan that was fair to the children and
    they would be “isolated” from Bryan and his family. Bryan’s parents and one of his sisters live in
    York, Nebraska. Bryan testified that he and the children spend 95 percent of his summer
    parenting time in York with his family.
    The district court filed its order on August 30, 2013. The district court found that Laura
    had a legitimate reason for leaving Nebraska. However, the district court found that it would not
    be in the children’s best interests to permit their removal to Alabama, and thus, the court denied
    Laura’s application for removal. After denying the removal, the district court found “no other
    convincing reason” to change custodial rights. The court further found that the current incomes
    of the parties did not warrant a modification of the child support order. Laura’s motion for new
    trial was overruled. Laura now appeals.
    III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    Laura assigns that the district court erred in denying her permission to remove the minor
    children from Nebraska.
    Bryan assigns and argues in his brief that the district court erred in determining that
    Laura had a legitimate reason for the proposed move. However, there is no designation of a
    cross-appeal on the cover of Bryan’s brief, nor is a cross-appeal set forth in a separate division of
    the brief as required by Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(4) (rev. 2012). Any party who fails to
    properly identify and present its claim does so at its peril. In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra
    H., 
    258 Neb. 131
    , 
    602 N.W.2d 439
    (1999).
    IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    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. Watkins v. Watkins, 
    285 Neb. 693
    , 
    829 N.W.2d 643
    (2013). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court bases its child custody decision upon
    reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience,
    reason, and the evidence. 
    Id. V. ANALYSIS
                                           1. BURDEN OF PROOF
    In her brief, Laura argues that the trial court “required [her] to meet a burden of proof
    above and beyond that required by other litigants and as required by case law.” Brief for
    appellant at 7. She further states:
    Specifically, the trial court determined that on the quality of life issues that were
    comparable in Nebraska to Alabama, the same would result in finding the factor weighed
    against removal. Case law in Nebraska[,] however, clearly provides that if comparable
    the same should not be used to weigh in favor or against removal.
    -4-
    
    Id. In its
    oral ruling, the district court would often state that if a factor was balanced, it did not
    weigh in favor of removal.
    In Dragon v. Dragon, 
    21 Neb. Ct. App. 228
    , 243, 
    838 N.W.2d 56
    , 67 (2013), the district
    court determined that the mother “‘has the burden to prove that the minor child’s housing [and
    schooling] shall be improved by relocating to New Mexico and [she] failed to meet that
    burden,’” and thus, the factors did not support removal. (Emphasis in original.) However, on
    appeal, we said, “By saying [the mother] has the burden of showing how housing [and
    schooling] ‘shall be improved,’ the trial court imposes a burden requiring a heightened level of
    proof that we have not previously required.” 
    Id. We explained
    that a parent requesting removal
    must show how the child’s quality of life will be improved, and each of the factors contribute to
    the court’s ultimate determination regarding the child’s best interest. We noted that “[i]n
    previous cases, where the evidence does not establish any significant improvement . . . we have
    determined that the factor does not weigh in favor of or against removal.” 
    Id. at 243,
    838 N.W.2d
    at 68.
    Thus, to the extent that the district court in the instant case imposed a heightened burden
    of proof on Laura, such was incorrect. However, we review the record de novo on appeal and
    will apply the correct burden of proof in our overall analysis.
    2. REMOVAL FROM STATE
    The Nebraska Supreme Court in Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 
    257 Neb. 242
    , 249, 
    597 N.W.2d 592
    , 598 (1999), stated:
    To prevail on a motion to remove a minor child, the custodial parent must first
    satisfy the court that he or she has a legitimate reason for leaving the state. . . . After
    clearing that threshold, the custodial parent must next demonstrate that it is in the child’s
    best interests to continue living with him or her. . . . Of course, whether a proposed move
    is in the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration.
    (a) Legitimate Reason to Leave State
    The district court found that Laura had a legitimate reason for leaving Nebraska, namely
    her remarriage and her spouse’s residing in Alabama. We agree. See Vogel v. Vogel, 
    262 Neb. 1030
    , 
    637 N.W.2d 611
    (2002) (move to reside with custodial parent’s new spouse who is
    employed and resides in another state may constitute legitimate reason for removal). We now
    turn to the children’s best interests.
    (b) Children’s Best Interests
    In determining whether removal to another jurisdiction is in the children’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 children and the custodial
    parent; and (3) the impact such a move will have on contact between the children and the
    noncustodial parent, when viewed in the light of reasonable visitation. McLaughlin v.
    McLaughlin, 
    264 Neb. 232
    , 
    647 N.W.2d 577
    (2002). See, also, Farnsworth v. 
    Farnsworth, supra
    (definitive “roadmap” for analysis of such cases first set forth).
    -5-
    (i) Each Parent’s Motives
    The first consideration is each parent’s motive for seeking or opposing the move. The
    record is convincing that both parents are acting in good faith. Laura wants to move to Alabama
    to live with her new husband. Bryan does not want Laura to move Elle and Evan to Alabama
    because the move would affect the parenting time that he has with the children. This
    consideration is essentially neutral.
    (ii) Quality of Life
    For the second consideration, the Farnsworth court set forth a number of factors to assist
    trial courts in assessing whether the proposed move will enhance the quality of life for the
    children and the custodial parent. Factors to be considered include: (1) the emotional, physical,
    and developmental needs of the children; (2) the children’s opinion or preference as to where to
    live; (3) the extent to which the custodial parent’s income or employment will be enhanced; (4)
    the degree to which housing or living conditions would be improved; (5) the existence of
    educational advantages; (6) the quality of the relationship between the children and each parent;
    (7) the strength of the children’s ties to the present community and extended family there; (8) the
    likelihood that allowing or denying the move would antagonize hostilities between the two
    parents; and (9) the living conditions and employment opportunities for the custodial parent
    because the best interests of the children are interwoven with the well-being of the custodial
    parent. This list should not be misconstrued as setting out a hierarchy of factors. Depending on
    the circumstances of a particular case, any one factor or combination of factors may be variously
    weighted. See Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 
    257 Neb. 242
    , 
    597 N.W.2d 592
    (1999).
    a. Emotional, Physical, and
    Developmental Needs
    In the instant case, there is no evidence that the emotional, physical, and developmental
    needs of Elle and Evan cannot be met in either Nebraska or Alabama. This factor is neutral.
    b. Children’s Preference
    The children’s preference is a nonfactor in the instant case because neither child testified
    at trial.
    c. Enhancement of Income and Employment
    Laura was unemployed at the time of trial. She had previously worked at a company from
    May to November 2012, earning $12.25 per hour, but she lost her job when the company went
    out of business. She had been searching for jobs in Nebraska and had a few interviews, but no
    offers. Laura had not pursued employment in Alabama, because if allowed to move, she plans to
    be a stay-at-home mother.
    Joshua’s starting salary at Qualitest in Alabama was $75,563 per year. Joshua testified
    that according to his 2012 W-2 (which was received into evidence), he earned $64,938 that year.
    (We again note that it is unclear whether this is representative of a full year’s salary in light of
    his testimony that he moved to Alabama in November.) This is an increase of a little more than
    -6-
    $10,000 per year in income for Joshua. Joshua testified that he also feels like he has more job
    security at his current job and that there is room for advancement.
    A custodial parent’s income can be enhanced because of a new spouse’s career
    opportunities, for purposes of determining the potential that removal of children to another
    jurisdiction holds for enhancing the quality of life of the parent seeking removal of the children.
    Maranville v. Dworak, 
    17 Neb. Ct. App. 245
    , 
    758 N.W.2d 70
    (2008). See, also, McLaughlin v.
    McLaughlin, 
    264 Neb. 232
    , 
    647 N.W.2d 577
    (2002). Joshua’s income in Alabama is
    approximately $10,000 per year more than he earned in Nebraska. This enhancement in income
    and employment weighs slightly in favor of removal.
    However, the district court noted the $10,000 increase in Joshua’s income would be
    “somewhat negated by the transportation costs of providing [Bryan] with parenting time,
    including gas, hotel and potentially, airfare.” (Laura had testified that she would take all of the
    responsibility for transporting the children for Bryan’s parenting time and that she plans to drive
    the children to Nebraska, a 14- to 15-hour drive each way, at a cost of approximately $300 round
    trip for gas and food.) Thus, the district court found that moving to Alabama does not
    “sufficiently” enhance Laura’s income or employment.
    What the court failed to recognize in its order, and only briefly mentioned in its oral
    ruling, is that if Laura is not given permission to remove the children to Alabama, she would stay
    in Nebraska and Joshua would continue to live in Alabama. Thus, if removal is denied, Laura
    and Joshua would have the expense of maintaining two households. The cost of maintaining two
    separate households would exceed $300 per month, as evidenced by exhibit 15, an accounting of
    Laura and Joshua’s current monthly expenses wherein they reside in different states. Thus, the
    cost of maintaining two separate households if removal is denied would exceed the
    transportation costs Laura would incur if allowed to remove the children to Alabama (especially
    when considering that transportation costs would not be incurred every month). We acknowledge
    and have factored in Laura’s testimony that if removal is denied, she would have to get a job in
    Nebraska (although she has not had success in obtaining employment despite her search), and
    that the children would need care before and after school, which would be an additional expense.
    After our de novo review of the record, we disagree with the district court and find that the
    enhancement of income and employment weighs slightly in favor of the move.
    d. Housing and Living Conditions
    Laura has a home in Elkhorn, but she did not elaborate as to details. Laura and Joshua
    have not yet purchased a home in Alabama. However, Joshua testified that he had been
    preapproved for a $280,000 home loan. They plan on buying a home in Madison, which is a
    suburb of Huntsville. Laura testified that the home they plan to purchase would be bigger than
    their home in Elkhorn (3,000 versus 2,000 square feet). Joshua testified that the new home would
    be “roughly the same or maybe a little bit more in square footage” than their home in Nebraska.
    Laura testified that the neighborhoods in Madison and Elkhorn are “very similar.” Based on the
    evidence presented, this factor does not prevent or favor the move.
    -7-
    e. Educational Advantages
    Laura testified that she researched schools in Huntsville and Madison and that they were
    “the same or better” than the schools in Elkhorn, where the children currently attend. Although
    she provided printouts of testing statistics for schools in Madison and Elkhorn, the two school
    systems do not use the same standardized tests. Therefore, a statistical comparison is not all that
    helpful. Based on the evidence presented, this factor does not prevent or favor the move.
    f. Quality of Relationship Between
    Children and Parents
    Elle and Evan appear to have a quality relationship with both Laura and Bryan. This
    factor does not prevent or favor the move.
    g. Ties to Community and Extended Family
    Laura and the children have no relatives in Alabama, other than Joshua. However, the
    children have several relatives in Nebraska. Although Laura is estranged from her parents and
    her brother, she and the children are close to her aunt and uncle who live in Nebraska. Bryan’s
    parents and one of his sisters live in York. Bryan testified that he and the children spend 95
    percent of his summer parenting time in York with his family. Under Laura’s proposal that
    Bryan get up to 8 weeks of parenting time in the summer if removal was granted, Bryan and the
    children could continue to spend the majority of his summer parenting time with Bryan’s family
    in York. The ties to extended family would not be affected, nor would they be enhanced. This
    factor neither favors nor prevents removal.
    h. Hostilities Among Parents
    There was no evidence presented to the trial court that relocation would antagonize the
    relationship between the parties. In fact, Bryan testified that he and Laura had been very cordial
    over the years and that he thought they would be cordial again “once this is resolved.” This
    factor does not prevent or favor the move.
    i. Well-Being of Custodial Parent
    The final “quality of life” factor listed in Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 
    257 Neb. 242
    , 251,
    
    597 N.W.2d 592
    , 599 (1999), is consideration of “the living conditions and employment
    opportunities for the custodial parent because the best interests of the children are interwoven
    with the well-being of the custodial parent.” This factor was not specifically addressed by the
    trial court, and given the facts of this case, we find that some discussion is warranted. In
    particular, we see “living conditions” to include something more than the physical environment
    in the proposed new place of residence. Since a comparison of the physical residences is
    considered under a separate factor, as is the custodial parent’s employment or income
    enhancements, we view this factor to focus more on how the proposed new living conditions and
    employment impact the well-being of the custodial parent. In doing that, we consider not only
    the financial strain of maintaining two households versus one new household, but the emotional
    toll of a married couple living apart, and the impact of that separation on the custodial parent’s
    well-being and how that might, in turn, impact the children. In the record before us, this factor
    -8-
    would certainly weigh in favor of removal, since keeping the custodial parent’s family unit living
    together would certainly benefit the marital relationship, would eliminate the added costs of
    separate households, and would eliminate Laura’s need for securing employment, which would
    also avoid daycare costs.
    Since the children’s best interests are interwoven with the well-being of the custodial
    parent, see Farnsworth v. 
    Farnsworth, supra
    , when the primary purpose of the removal is to
    allow the custodial parent to move with a relocating spouse, it would seem that this factor might
    warrant greater weight when balancing the other quality of life factors, or perhaps more
    important, when balanced against the other two “best interests” factors. However, there is no rule
    of law that requires this factor to be accorded any greater weight than any other quality of life
    factor, and in fact, Farnsworth states that, with regard to quality of life factors, “[d]epending on
    the circumstances of a particular case, any one factor or combination of factors may be variously
    
    weighted.” 257 Neb. at 251
    , 597 N.W.2d at 599. We also note that even if the “quality of life”
    factors in total weigh more in favor of the removal than against, these factors together compose
    only one consideration out of the three considerations Farnsworth tells us to evaluate with regard
    to the children’s best interests. We now move to the third and final consideration in the best
    interests analysis.
    (iii) Impact on Noncustodial
    Parent’s Visitation
    “[T]his consideration focuses on the ability of the noncustodial parent to maintain a
    meaningful parent-child relationship.” Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 
    257 Neb. 242
    , 251, 
    597 N.W.2d 592
    , 599 (1999). And “[w]hen looking at this consideration, courts typically view it in
    the light of the potential to establish and maintain a reasonable visitation schedule.” 
    Id. The Farnsworth
    court noted that the frequency and the total number of days of visitation and the
    distance traveled and expense incurred go into the calculus of determining reasonableness, citing
    In re Marriage of Herkert, 
    245 Ill. App. 3d 1068
    , 
    615 N.E.2d 833
    , 
    186 Ill. Dec. 29
    (1993).
    Relocating to Alabama will undoubtedly have an effect on the time Elle and Evan get to
    spend with Bryan. Bryan currently enjoys parenting time every other weekend (Friday to
    Sunday), alternating holidays, and 5 weeks every summer. If Laura is allowed to remove the
    children to Alabama, Bryan would no longer have the ability to exercise his parenting time every
    other weekend, nor would he have the ability to attend school, sports, or other activities in which
    the children may become involved.
    Laura recognized the impact this change would have on the relationship between the
    children and Bryan, and she therefore proposed changes to the parenting plan to include
    extended time with Bryan during holidays, school breaks, and summer vacation. She proposed
    allowing Bryan up to 6 weeks of summer parenting time (at trial she testified that she even
    offered him up to 8 weeks) and suggested Bryan be entitled to every spring break, every
    Thanksgiving holiday, and half of the Christmas holiday every year. Laura recognized that
    schedules would be subject to travel issues and said she would take all of the responsibility for
    transporting the children for Bryan’s parenting time. The evidence presented is that Laura plans
    to drive the children to Nebraska, a 14- to 15-hour drive each way, at a cost of approximately
    $300 round trip for gas and food. Laura also proposed daily communication between Bryan and
    -9-
    the children via telephone calls, “Skype,” or other electronic communication. Additionally,
    Bryan would be able visit the children in Alabama anytime he wishes (at his own expense), as
    long as he provides reasonable advanced notice.
    As stated previously, we focus on the ability of the noncustodial parent to maintain a
    meaningful parent-child relationship, see Farnsworth v. 
    Farnsworth, supra
    , and in doing that, we
    agree with the district court that this consideration weighs against removal. In this case,
    permitting the children to move to Alabama would reduce not only the frequency of contact the
    children could have with Bryan, but also the total amount of parenting time. Even Laura
    acknowledges that removal would result in a reduction in overall parenting time for Bryan,
    stating that “Bryan had the children approximately 81 days each year” and that “unless he
    traveled to Alabama himself, the proposed schedule for parenting time would afford Bryan
    anywhere from 43 to 71 days each year.” Brief for appellant at 21. Additionally, the distance
    would also reduce, if not eliminate, Bryan’s ability to attend activities during the school year in
    which the children may become involved. Driving from Lincoln to Elkhorn makes participation
    in such events a possibility, whereas, driving or flying to Alabama for such events would be time
    and cost prohibitive, at least on a regular basis. Laura’s proposed parenting plan did not add
    more days to Bryan’s existing parenting time, so what Bryan loses in frequent contact is not
    compensated for by more overall parenting time throughout the year.
    Also, traveling between Alabama and Nebraska would have resulted in the children’s
    being on the road for 14 to 15 hours each way in order to see their father. Laura testified as to the
    need to drive the children rather than allowing them to fly (due to ages and need for supervision),
    so any holiday or vacation time awarded to Bryan would be reduced by time lost in the 14- to
    15-hour drive each way between the states.
    In Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 
    258 Neb. 1035
    , 
    607 N.W.2d 517
    (2000), the Nebraska
    Supreme Court considered the impact of the mother’s relocation from Nebraska to Canada on the
    ability of a father to maintain a meaningful relationship with his children. The Kalkowski court
    noted that in Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 
    257 Neb. 242
    , 
    597 N.W.2d 592
    (1999), where the
    distance between Omaha and Denver, Colorado, would lessen frequency of visits, the distance
    was not one which would prevent the father from seeing his child on a regular basis. However, in
    the case before it, the Kalkowski court noted that the same could not be said of the distance
    between Nebraska and Canada, stating, “The greater distance, less direct travel connections, and
    the significant expense and time involved in traveling between the two locations are significant
    factors which the trial court properly 
    considered.” 258 Neb. at 1047
    , 607 N.W.2d at 517. In
    considering the impact of all the long distance driving on Bryan’s parenting time, the trial court
    in the case before us likewise expressed concern about how this would adversely impact Bryan’s
    time and relationship with the children. It is evident that the district court placed the greatest
    weight on this third consideration when evaluating the best interests of the children.
    (c) Summary
    As stated earlier, the evidence establishes a legitimate reason for the move to Alabama. In
    considering the children’s best interests, we have reviewed the three considerations dictated by
    Farnsworth v. 
    Farnsworth, supra
    : (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 children and the
    - 10 -
    custodial parent; and (3) the impact such a move will have on contact between the children and
    the noncustodial parent, when viewed in the light of reasonable visitation. Like the district court,
    we find that the motives of Laura for wanting to move, and those of Bryan in opposing the move,
    are based in good faith, and this consideration is therefore neutral. As for the quality of life
    consideration, with its nine factors, our de novo review shows that in total, this factor favors
    removal. However, when considering the third and final consideration, the impact of the move
    on contact between Bryan and the children when viewed in the light of reasonable parenting
    time, we agree with the district court that this consideration weighs against removal.
    In sum, we have one neutral consideration, one consideration favoring removal, and one
    consideration weighing against removal. In reviewing the totality of all the factors as discussed
    above, the trial court’s decision could have gone either way. When the evidence is that close, and
    although we may have viewed the evidence initially in a different way than did the trial court, we
    cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Laura’s request to remove the
    children to Alabama.
    VI. CONCLUSION
    For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district court’s order denying Laura’s request
    to remove the children to Alabama.
    AFFIRMED.
    - 11 -