State v. Matthew E.

45 Citing cases

  1. Schroeder v. Schroeder

    No. A-16-067 (Neb. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2017)

    Custody of a minor child may be placed with both parents on a joint legal custody or joint physical custody basis, or both, (a) when both parents agree to such an arrangement in the parenting plan and the court determines that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child or (b) if the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor child regardless of any parental agreement or consent.In State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500, 873 N.W.2d 208 (2016), this court noted that appellate review of joint legal custody issues has often focused on the parties' ability to communicate, but we pointed out that appellate courts review such decisions for an abuse of discretion and may give weight to the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses. Further, "In affording such deference to the trial courts, appellate courts have in some instances declined to reverse trial court decisions where joint custody has been awarded or maintained even when the evidence demonstrates a lack of communication or cooperation between parents."

  2. Santo v. Santo

    448 Md. 620 (Md. 2016)   Cited 233 times
    Holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to award joint legal and physical custody with a tie-breaker even though parents do not communicate well

    We require that the tie-breaker parent cannot make the final call until after weighing in good faith the ideas the other parent has expressed regarding their children. Cf. State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb.App. 500, 873 N.W.2d 208, 219 (2016) (“We also point out that the court maintained the goal of ‘mutual agreement’ between the parties....; only now, the final say as to certain major issues rests with the designated parent if they cannot otherwise agree.”). Such an award has the salutary effect of empowering both parents to participate in significant matters affecting their children.

  3. Easton v. Easton

    No. A-23-088 (Neb. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2024)

    As to that evidence summarized in part above, while giving weight to the fact that the trial court heard and observed the witnesses, we find no error in the district court accepting Andrew's version of the facts rather than Jessica's or in finding that the evidence was sufficient to find a material change in circumstances had occurred that affected the children's best interests. See generally State on Behalf of Maddox v. Matthew E., 23 Neb.App. 500, 873 N.W.2d 208 (2016) (ongoing conflict can constitute material change in circumstances). This assignment of error fails.

  4. Hays v. Hays

    No. A-21-956 (Neb. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2022)

    However, appellate courts review custody decisions for an abuse of discretion and may give weight to the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another. State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb.App. 500, 873 N.W.2d 208 (2016).

  5. Stockdale v. Rehal

    No. A-17-1221 (Neb. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2019)

    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. State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500, 873 N.W.2d 208 (2016). Parenting time determinations are also 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.

  6. Breinig-Pruitt v. Westfahl

    No. A-18-398 (Neb. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2019)

    Custody of a minor child may be placed with both parents on a joint legal custody or joint physical custody basis, or both, (a) when both parents agree to such an arrangement in the parenting plan and the court determines that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child or (b) if the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor child regardless of any parental agreement or consent. Section 42-364 applies to custody disputes in paternity actions. State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500, 873 N.W.2d 208 (2016). "We acknowledge that courts typically do not award joint legal custody when the parties are unable to communicate effectively.

  7. State ex rel. Brooklynn H. v. Joseph B.

    No. A-17-920 (Neb. Ct. App. Jul. 3, 2018)

    Child custody and parenting time 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. See State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500, 873 N.W.2d 208 (2016).

  8. Covil v. Covil

    No. A-17-203 (Neb. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2018)

    Parenting time determinations are also 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. State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500, 873 N.W.2d 208 (2016). In child custody cases, where the credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.

  9. Schriner v. Schriner

    25 Neb. App. 165 (Neb. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 13 times

    Parenting time determinations are also 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. State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500, 873 N.W.2d 208 (2016). In child custody cases, where the credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.

  10. Heavican v. Benes

    No. A-15-1232 (Neb. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2016)

    Her main argument against joint custody is the parties' communication difficulties. As we stated in State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500, 516-17, 873 N.W.2d 208, 218 (2016): We acknowledge that courts typically do not award joint legal custody when the parties are unable to communicate effectively.