Nebraska

Hybrid framework; factor structure: 6 + 5 mandates. The burden and special written findings in § 43-2932 depend on the specified factual findings. Section 43-2932 is not an unqualified presumption against every parent.

Authority

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2923(6)

Source framework

Hybrid

Factor structure

6 + 5 mandates

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

preamble

Presumptions in the original survey

None; § 43-2932 shifts burden to an offending parent

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

"the marriage is irretrievably broken," § 42-361

Authority

Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-347(3), 42-361, 42-363

Grounds without a misconduct showing

"the marriage is irretrievably broken," § 42-361

Other grounds and proof conditions

None (0)

Separation

No general separation period identified for the ordinary breakdown route. See the ground and timing conditions.

Timing

60 days after perfected service under § 42-363. Decree finality and appeal effects are separately governed by §§ 42-372 and 42-372.01. The 60-day hearing rule does not describe all post-decree consequences.

Relief without dissolution

Yes, defined at § 42-347(7)

Compare divorce grounds nationally

Farnsworth’s out-of-state removal framework is case-law based; a complaint-to-modify statute and parenting-plan address notice also apply. No general relocation advance period identified.

Authority

Case law (Farnsworth), Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-364(6)

Court test

judicial relocation factors

Burden classification

burden on the relocating parent

Notice classification

no

Trigger classification

out-of-state removal

Effect of silence

No generally applicable deemed-consent procedure identified; existing orders remain separate

What the court weighs

Two-part framework: (1) the custodial parent must show a legitimate reason for leaving the state. (2) the custodial parent must show that it is in the child's best interests to continue living with him or her after the move, which is the paramount prong. Farnsworth's three broad considerations are non-exhaustive: each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move. The move's potential to enhance the quality of life for the child and custodial parent. And the impact on the noncustodial parent's contact, given reasonable visitation (Korth 2021, Franklin M. 2022). Farnsworth lists nine non-hierarchical quality-of-life considerations under the second consideration: the child's emotional, physical and developmental needs. The child's preference. Enhancement of the custodial parent's income or employment. Improved housing or living conditions. Educational advantages. The quality of the child's relationship with each parent. The strength of the child's ties to the present community and extended family. The likelihood that allowing or denying the move would antagonize hostilities between the parents. And the custodial parent's living conditions and employment opportunities (257 Neb. at 250-51). The threshold burden generally applies in dissolution cases in both initial and later proceedings (Kalkowski 2000, as described in Franklin M.). It does not apply to an initial custody determination in a paternity case (State on behalf of Pathammavong v. Pathammavong, 2004, reaffirmed in Franklin M. 2022), to an initial dissolution award of custody to a parent who never lived in Nebraska (Taylor-Couchman 2021, Neb. App.), or to intrastate moves (Bohnet). The general Farnsworth considerations still inform best interests in each of those settings.

Who carries the burden

On the custodial parent seeking removal, for both prongs. No formal shift. In an ordinary modification, the moving party must show a material change in circumstances and that the change is in the child's best interests.

Notice and safety exceptions

No general relocation-specific advance-notice period identified. Section 43-2929(2) requires parenting plans to provide reciprocal address-change notice, with county and state only for a party living or moving to an undisclosed safety location. Farnsworth supplies the case-law out-of-state removal framework; § 42-364(6) requires a complaint to modify for removal from the court’s jurisdiction and addresses mediation under the Parenting Act.

Which moves trigger the rule

Case law: a custodial parent's request to move the child out of Nebraska ('removal'). Intrastate moves are not analyzed under Farnsworth: Bohnet v. Bohnet, 22 Neb. App. 846, 862 N.W.2d 99 (2015) (148-mile in-state move, further review denied), reaffirmed in Perlman v. Perlman (Neb. Ct. App. 2023, memorandum opinion). In-state moves go through ordinary material-change modification.

Objections and the effect of silence

The other parent contests the removal request or complaint to modify in court. No general relocation-specific objection deadline or deemed-consent procedure identified; existing plan and order terms remain separate.

The modification threshold

Removal of a child from the state, without more, is not a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody, but a move considered with other facts can be (Korth headnote 25). A removal request under an existing decree proceeds as a complaint to modify (§ 42-364(6)). For in-state moves, the trial court in Perlman stated that an intrastate move is not in itself a material change.

Other qualifications

The Farnsworth two-part framework for out-of-state removal is case-law based. Section 42-364(6) provides a complaint-to-modify procedure for removal from the court's jurisdiction, and § 43-2929(2) requires parenting plans to include address-change notice, subject to the safety provision. The second prong asks whether continuing to live with the custodial parent after the move serves the child's best interests.

Burden summary

On the moving parent

Notice summary

Plan address-change notice; no general relocation advance period established

Trigger summary

Out of state

Compare parental relocation nationally