Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed a civil contempt proceeding involving alleged interference with a paternal grandfather’s court-ordered grandparent visitation. The court affirmed the dismissal of the contempt complaint, finding no abuse of discretion in the determination that the mother’s failure to enforce visitation on the children’s deceased father’s birthday was not willful. The court reversed and vacated the modification of the visitation decree because the parties lacked adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard on modification.
Holdings
- An appellate court will not consider the merits of an appellee's purported cross-appeal when the cross-appeal section of the brief does not comply with Nebraska Court Rule of Appellate Practice § 2-109(D)(4), including the required separate title page and table of contents.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Christina was not in civil contempt because the evidence did not establish willful disobedience of the visitation decree by clear and convincing evidence.
- The district court improperly modified the grandparent-visitation decree because the parties lacked reasonable notice that modification would be considered and lacked an opportunity to present evidence and be heard on that issue.
- Grandparent visitation in Nebraska is controlled by statute, and modification is governed by the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1802(3).
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by finding that Christina Krejci was not in civil contempt for failing to enforce the May 19, 2018, grandparent-visitation visit.
- Whether the district court improperly modified the grandparent-visitation decree without adequate notice and an opportunity for the parties to be heard on modification.
- Whether Christina Krejci properly presented a cross-appeal under Nebraska appellate briefing rules.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (9)
- In re Estate of Graham, 301 Neb. 594, 919 N.W.2d 714 (2018)(followed)
- Martin v. Martin, 294 Neb. 106, 881 N.W.2d 174 (2016)(followed)
- Hossaini v. Vaelizadeh, 283 Neb. 369, 808 N.W.2d 867 (2012)(followed)
- Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier, 279 Neb. 661, 782 N.W.2d 848 (2010)(partially disapproved)
- Hamit v. Hamit, 271 Neb. 659, 715 N.W.2d 512 (2006)(followed)
- Pier v. Bolles, 257 Neb. 120, 596 N.W.2d 1 (1999)(followed)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000)(cited)
- Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84, 827 A.2d 203 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177, 124 S. Ct. 1408, 158 L. Ed. 2d 78 (2004)(cited)
- Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76, 907 N.W.2d 275 (2018)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…