Weston D. Derby, appellee and CROSS-APPELLANT,
STEPHANIE R. Martinez, appellant AND CROSS-APPELLEE.
1. Paternity: Appeal and Error. In a filiation proceeding, questions concerning child custody determinations are reviewed on appeal de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial court, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. In such de novo review, when the evidence is in conflict, the appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial court heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.
2. Child Custody. To prevail on a motion to remove a minor child, the custodial parent must first satisfy the court that he or she has a legitimate reason for leaving the state. After clearing that threshold, the custodial parent must next demonstrate that it is in the child's best interests to continue living with him or her.
3. Child Custody: Visitation. Nebraska's removal jurisprudence does not apply to a child born out of wedlock where there has been no prior adjudication addressing child custody or parenting time. However, it is appropriate for a court to give some consideration to the factors described in Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999), in determining custody based on the children's best interests.
4. Child Custody. Legitimate employment opportunities for a custodial parent may constitute a legitimate reason for leaving the state.
5. ___. Legitimate employment opportunities may constitute a legitimate reason where there is a reasonable expectation of improvement in the career or occupation of the custodial parent, or where the custodial parent's new job includes increased potential for salary advancement.
[24 Neb.App. 18] 6. ___. A firm offer of employment in another state with a flexible schedule in close proximity to the custodial parent's extended family constitutes a legitimate reason for relocation.
7. Child Custody: Visitation. Under Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999), the trial court evaluates three considerations in determining whether removal to another jurisdiction is in the child's best interests: (1) each parent's motives for seeking or opposing the move, (2) 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 the noncustodial parent.
8. Child Custody. In determining the potential that the removal to another jurisdiction holds for enhancing the quality of life of the child and the parent seeking removal, a court should consider the following factors: (1) the emotional, physical, and developmental needs of the child; (2) the child's opinion or preference as to where to live; (3) the extent to which the relocating parent's income or employment will be enhanced; (4) the degree to which housing or living conditions would be improved; (5) the existence of educational advantages; (6) the quality of the relationship between the child and each parent; (7) the strength of the child's ties to the present community and extended family there; (8) the likelihood that allowing or denying the move would antagonize hostilities between the two parties; and (9) the living conditions and employment opportunities for the custodial parent, because the best interests of the child are interwoven with the well-being of the custodial parent.
9. Child Custody: Visitation. Absent some aggravating circumstances, such as an ulterior motive to frustrate the noncustodial parent's visitation rights, significant career advancement is a legitimate motive in and of itself.
10. Rules of the Supreme Court: Appeal and Error. Under Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(4) (rev. 2014), a party filing a cross-appeal must set forth a separate division of the brief prepared in the same manner and under the same rules as the brief of appellant.
11. ___: ___. To comply with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(4) (rev. 2014), a cross-appeal section must set forth a separate title page, a table of contents, a statement of the case, assigned errors, propositions of law, and a statement of facts.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Timothy P. Burns, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
[24 Neb.App. 19] Jeff T. Courtney, PC, L.L.O., for appellant.
Carol Pinard Cronin for appellee.
Irwin, Pirtle, and Riedmann, Judges.
Stephanie R. Martinez (Stephanie) appeals from an order of the district court for Douglas County finding that Weston D. Derby is the biological father of Harrison Jude Derby and awarding Stephanie custody of Harrison but denying her request to remove him from Nebraska to Texas. Based on the reasons that follow, we reverse, and remand with directions.
Stephanie and Weston started dating in 2011, but were never married. Stephanie gave birth to Harrison in July 2013. The parties' relationship ended in January 2014. On April 3, 2014, Weston filed an amended complaint to establish paternity, custody, parenting time, and related issues. Weston sought sole custody of Harrison or, in the alternative, joint physical custody. Stephanie filed an amended answer and amended coun-tercomplaint in which she sought sole custody of Harrison and permission to "leave the jurisdiction with" Harrison.
Trial was held in March 2015. Weston testified that he is self-employed as a stonemason, which involves building and restoring items such as outdoor fireplaces, patios, building entrances, pillars, and chimneys. He testified that he does not have a set work schedule and works as much as he can.
Weston testified that he was raised in Omaha, Nebraska. His mother lives in Omaha, as well as two of his siblings and their children. Weston has another son, who was 7 years old at the time of trial. He testified that he has parenting time with his older son on a regular basis and has a good relationship with that son's mother. There was also evidence that Weston's older son and Harrison get along well with each other.
[24 Neb.App. 20] Weston testified that he was present for Harrison's birth and that although the parties kept separate residences, he has helped out with Harrison since his birth. He testified that in January 2014, Stephanie cut off his contact with Harrison, which led him to file his amended complaint. After a temporary order was entered giving him set parenting time, he had regular contact with Harrison. He testified that after the temporary order was entered, he and Stephanie were getting along with each other. He would bring food over to her house, purchase clothing and diapers for Harrison, and help Stephanie out around her house. Between April and November 2014, he did various repair and improvement work on her house. He also did work on Stephanie's parents' house.
At the time of trial, Weston was living in a two-bedroom, two-bathroom house owned by a friend. Weston had been fixing up and renovating the home in lieu of ...