A-21-0958, Sarah K. Glover (Appellant) v. Paul G. Glover
District Court for Sarpy County, District Judge Stefanie A. Martinez
Attorneys for Appellant: Brent M. Kuhn & Haley L. Cannon (Brent Kuhn Law)
Attorney for Appellee: Caitlin R. Lovell (Johnson & Mock, PC, LLO)
Civil Action: Request to remove child from Nebraska
Action taken by the Trial Court: The trial court entered an order denying Sarah’s request for removal with prejudice. The court found that Sarah had not shown a material change in circumstances justifying the removal, she had not shown her removal request was for a legitimate reason, and she had not shown that the move was in the child’s best interests.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Did the trial court err in failing to find that Sarah had demonstrated the necessary material change in circumstances required to warrant a modification of the decree? Did the trial court err in failing to find that Sarah had failed to show a legitimate reason for her request for removal? Did the trial court err in failing to find that removal from Nebraska was in the child’s best interests? Did the trial court err in dismissing Sarah’s complaint to modify with prejudice?
Background: Sarah and Paul are the parents of a child born in 2017. This case concerns a request by Sarah to remove the child from Nebraska to live in the Vancouver area of the States of Washington and Oregon.
In 2020, Paul was arrested for possession of child pornography, and Sarah filed for divorce. She also requested permission to remove the child from Nebraska, but the trial court, as a discovery sanction, did not consider her request at that time. Evidence at the divorce trial showed that Paul was convicted and sentenced to 42 months’ incarceration in a federal facility in Minnesota. He was to begin serving his sentence in January 2021. In February, the court entered a divorce decree dissolving the parties’ marriage. The court awarded Sarah sole legal and physical custody of the child. It awarded Paul parenting time of three phone calls per week while incarcerated.
In March 2021, Sarah filed a complaint to modify the divorce decree, which she later amended. She only sought to relocate the child to the Vancouver area of Washington and Oregon, where she had family and a job offer. She stated that there had been a material change of circumstances justifying the removal without specifying what the material change had been. She did specify her reasons for requesting removal and alleged that the move was in the child’s best interests.
Following a trial on Sarah’s complaint, the court entered an order denying her request for removal with prejudice. The court found that Sarah had not shown a material change in circumstances justifying the removal, she had not shown her removal request was for a legitimate reason, and she had not shown that the move was in the child’s best interests. Sarah appeals the trial court’s decision.
On appeal, Sarah argues that the trial court erred in finding she had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances. Ordinarily, under Nebraska law, custody and parenting time of a minor child will not be modified unless there has been a material change in circumstances showing that the best interests of the child require modification. Sarah also argues that the court erred in denying her request for removal. To remove a minor child from Nebraska to another jurisdiction, a custodial parent must first show the court that he or she has a legitimate reason for leaving the state. Next, the custodial parent must show that it is in the child’s best interests to continue living with him or her. In deciding the issue of best interests, the court considers each parent’s motive for seeking or opposing the move, the potential that the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the child and the custodial parent, and (3) the impact such a move will have on contact between the child and noncustodial parent when viewed in the light of reasonable visitation.