S-23-0863 Natasha K. Jenkins, f/k/a Natasha K. Jenkins Long (Appellee) v. Kyle J. Long (Appellant)
Appeal from the District Court for Scotts Bluff County, Judge Cindy R. Volkmer
Attorneys: Katy A. Reichert (Holyoke, Snyder, Longoria, Reichert, & Rice, PC, LLO for Appellant) and Lindsay E. Pedersen (Lindsay E. Pedersen, Attorney at Law, P.C., L.L.O. for Appellee)
Civil: Dissolution of marriage and contempt of court
Proceedings Below: The district court clarified the language in the parenting plan and found Appellant in contempt of court. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The district court erred when it entered an order pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(1) interpreting a provision of the decree when the motion was filed more than two years after the decree was entered and no appeal had been taken; 2) The district court erred when it entered an order pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(1) interpreting a provision of the decree when the motion was filed after the term and more than six months after the entry of an order that struck a separate provision of the decree; 3) The district court erred in finding that the time between July 14, 2020, and January 21, 2021, was less than six months; 4) The district court erred in finding Appellant in willful contempt of the court’s decree when he instructed the school to contact him first regarding any issues that arise at school; 5) The district court erred in finding that the decree required a noncustodial parent be conferred about educational issues at the child’s school; 6) The district court erred in finding that a provision of the decree that allowed each parent to make day-to-day decisions regarding minor parenting issues during their parenting time entitled a noncustodial to be conferred about educational issues at the child’s school; 7) The district court erred in ordering a parent with legal custody to exercise education decision-making and direct the school that it had to confer with the noncustodial parent whenever any issue arises at school; 8) The district court erred in admitting Exhibit 221 into evidence over foundational and hearsay objections. No foundation was established to prove authenticity and identification of the exhibit. Exhibit 221 was a writing that contained multiple forms of hearsay that was not subject to any hearsay exception; 9) The district court erred in interpreting the decree to require that both parents must maintain valid medical releases with all current and former providers art all times, without being requested by the other parent or provider to execute a medical release; 10) The district court erred in finding Appellant signed the Revocation of Authorization knowing that the action was in violation of the decree; 11) The district court erred finding Appellant in willful contempt for signing a Revocation of Authorization at Regional West Medical Center on October 31, 2018; 12) The district court erred in finding that Appellant did not sign a medical release so Appellee could access the minor child’s medical records after October 31, 2018; 13) The district court erred in finding that Appellee could not access the minor child’s medical records after Appellant signed a Revocation of Authorization on October 31, 2018; 14) The district court erred in finding that Appellee had been deprived of the child’s medical records for nearly 5 years because Appellant had signed a Revocation of Authorization on October 31, 2018; and 15) The district court abused its discretion in holding that, as a sanction for the contempt, sentencing Appellant to 10 days imprisonment.