S-24-0018 Stacy L. Jones (Appellee) v. Joshua Colgrove (Appellant) v. State of Nebraska (Intervenor/Appellee)
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County, Judge Darla S. Ideus
Attorneys: Matt Catlett (Law Office of Matt Catlett for Appellant), Eddy M. Rodell (Attorney for Appellee Jones), and Natalie L. Lips (Deputy Lancaster County Attorney for Appellee/Intervenor)
Civil: Bridge order
Proceedings below: The State sought to amend a bridge order to include child and medical support, and Appellant sought to amend the order by seeking legal and physical custody of the minor child. After trial, the district court did not modify legal or physical custody of the minor child, but it ordered Appellant to provide medical and child support. Appellant petitioned to bypass the Court of Appeals, which the Supreme Court granted and transferred this case from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The district court erred in not awarding exclusive legal and physical custody of B.C. to Joshua, and in not adopting Joshua’s parenting plan; 2) The district court erred in finding that Joshua “declined” to “submit to a home/visit inspection;” 3) The district court erred in finding that Joshua “declined” to “submit himself … to a background check;” 4) The district court erred in finding that the reason “[B.C.] was never placed in [Joshua’s] care by the juvenile court and/or DHHS” is because he “declined” to “sign a medical release, submit himself and other family members to a background check, or submit to a home visit/inspection;” 5) Even if it was not error for the district court to find that Joshua “declined” to “sign a medical release, submit himself and other family members to a background check, or submit to a home visit/inspection,” the district court erred in placing any weight on these facts; 6) The district court erred in finding that Joshua “does not respond” to Stacy when she “tries to communicate” with him “about matters pertaining to [B.C.;]” 7) The district court erred in finding that Joshua “takes little or no initiative when it comes to [B.C.;]” 8) The district court erred in finding that Stacy “complied with the requirements and recommendations of the juvenile court and/or DHHS;” 9) The district court erred in finding that Stacy “has taken the appropriate steps to address her anger and that which led to the event in October 2019;” 10) The district court erred in finding that Stacy “has taken steps to develop appropriate coping skills and improve her parenting skills;” 11) Even if it was not error for the district court to find that Stacy “complied with the requirements and recommendations of the juvenile court and/or DHHS,” “has taken the appropriate steps to address her anger and that which led to the event in October 2019,” and “has taken steps to develop appropriate coping skills and improve her parenting skills,” the district court erred in placing any weight on these facts; 12) The district court erred in finding that Stacy “is taking appropriate steps to assist [B.C.] and his progress in school;” 13) The district court erred in failing to comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932; 14) The district court erred in denying Joshua’s motion to dismiss and strike the State’s complaint; 15) The district court erred in denying Joshua’s April 4, 2023, motions to reconsider the March 24, 2023, order and to strike the “Amended Bridge Order” and the “Amended Custody Decree;” 16) The district court erred in requiring Joshua to be entirely responsible for transportation of B.C. for the exercise of his parenting time; 17) The district erred in ordering child support; and 18) Assuming it was not error for the district court to order child support, and assuming it was not error for the district court to award exclusive legal and physical custody of B.C. to Stacy, the district court erred in not awarding Joshua any entitlement to the income tax exemption for B.C.