Background
Jarrett Rodriguez and Samantha Phelps share joint legal and physical custody of their daughter under a week-on-week-off schedule. Their 2018 paternity, custody, and support decree required Rodriguez to pay $101 per month in child support.
Rodriguez sought permission to move with the child from Nebraska to Texas, citing a $115,000 management job with his father’s company, a rent-free home next to his family, and a desire to help care for his mother, who has dementia. Phelps opposed the move and counterclaimed for increased support. The district court denied relocation, raised Rodriguez’s support to $417 per month, and awarded Phelps attorney fees and costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relocation. It held that the district court improperly considered Rodriguez’s willingness to remain in Nebraska if relocation were denied when assessing whether he had a legitimate reason to leave. But it deferred to the trial court’s credibility findings that Rodriguez had not proved a legitimate reason, and independently agreed that the move was not in the child’s best interests.
The court concluded that the proposed move would disrupt the child’s close relationship and regular contact with Phelps, while Rodriguez had not shown that Texas would provide needed educational, medical, or therapeutic resources for a child with an IEP, ADHD diagnosis, and prior therapy needs. The court also vacated the support increase because Phelps did not prove a post-2018 material change in circumstances or establish the value and timing of Rodriguez’s in-kind benefits. It reinstated the 2018 support obligation and modified the fee ruling so that each party bears their own fees and costs.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s decision to stay in Nebraska if relocation is denied concerns custody, not whether the parent has a legitimate reason to relocate.
- A higher-paying out-of-state job and family proximity do not establish that relocation serves the child’s best interests.
- Child support cannot be increased based on speculative earning capacity or unvalued in-kind benefits without proof of a material post-decree change.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Nebraska relocation cases turn principally on the child’s best interests, including continuity of care, educational and mental-health needs, and preservation of meaningful contact with both parents. It also reinforces that a proposed but unavailable job cannot be used to inflate support absent evidence the parent can realistically earn that income where they remain.