Background
Caleb Waugh and Taylor McManus, unmarried parents of Layla (born 2018), had joint legal and physical custody under an April 2019 paternity decree. The decree provided Waugh with parenting time every Sunday through Wednesday morning plus every other weekend, with McManus receiving Wednesday through Friday plus alternate weekends. The decree prohibited McManus’s mother Angela—who struggled with methamphetamine addiction—from being “around the child.” Neither parent paid child support, but they split medical and childcare expenses.
In July 2024, the State filed a complaint seeking child support from Waugh after Layla received public assistance. Both parents filed counter-complaints alleging material changes in circumstances. Waugh sought sole custody, claiming McManus lacked stability, reliable transportation, and adequate parenting. McManus sought to continue joint custody under a week-on/week-off schedule and remove the restriction on her mother, who she testified had been sober for five years.
At trial, a mental health clinician testified that Layla suffered from adjustment disorder with anxiety, felt emotionally safer at Waugh’s home (which offered more routine and engagement through Waugh’s girlfriend Dylann), and experienced distress at transitions and in McManus’s household. Evidence regarding Layla’s behavioral issues, observations of marijuana smell on her clothing, and Layla’s discomfort with McManus’s former boyfriend Dustin (who was frequently present and had pending drug charges) figured prominently.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s modification order. The court held that McManus established material changes in circumstances—namely, Waugh’s taking Layla from school for a hair follicle test without McManus’s knowledge or consent (a violation of the parenting plan and failure to communicate) and Angela’s current sobriety making the contact prohibition unnecessary. The court found no abuse of discretion in modifying custody to a rotating week-on/week-off schedule and removing the Angela prohibition.
The court rejected Waugh’s challenges on several grounds. First, it affirmed the district court’s exclusion of drug test results for lack of foundational evidence—no testimony established the tests’ reliability, procedure, control measures, or transmission chain. Second, it found the week-on/week-off schedule served Layla’s best interests by reducing disruptive weekly transitions, despite reducing Waugh’s parenting time from 60% to 50%. Third, it found insufficient evidence to require supervised parenting time: the hair follicle test—the only “admissible” evidence of drug use—was excluded, and no substantiated reports to child protection authorities demonstrated risk to Layla in McManus’s care. The court noted that Layla was thriving academically and attending school regularly.
Key Takeaways
- Modification of custody requires proof of both material change in circumstances and that the change serves the child’s best interests; the district court’s findings are reviewed de novo but given deference when credibility determinations favor one party’s account.
- Drug test results excluded for foundation and hearsay; business records exception requires proof of reliability, testing procedure, control measures, and authentication chain—not merely testimony that testing occurred.
- Parental failures to communicate and unilateral decisions contrary to a parenting plan (e.g., removing a child from school without the other parent’s knowledge) constitute material changes in circumstances warranting custody review.
- Reduction in a parent’s parenting time may serve the child’s best interests when evidence shows the child struggles with frequent transitions, even if the change decreases one parent’s custodial time.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the weight courts give to expert evidence about a child’s emotional and psychological functioning in custody disputes, particularly where a mental health clinician’s observations of the child’s sense of safety, anxiety levels, and transitions between homes are directly relevant to best-interest analysis. The decision rejects allegations of parental misconduct (drug use, neglect) that lack admissible evidence or substantiation by authorities, prioritizing what can be proven over suspicion or circumstantial indicators. It also signals that one parent’s unilateral actions—such as subjecting a child to medical testing without the other parent’s knowledge—can undermine otherwise valid custody positions.
The court’s embrace of McManus’s proposed week-on/week-off schedule and removal of the grandmother contact prohibition reflects a modern approach to parenting arrangements that prioritizes stability and relationship continuity over frequent transitions, even when one parent opposes the change. Practitioners should note the strict foundational requirements for expert-generated test results and the limits of hearsay in family law contexts when documents lack chain-of-custody authentication or reliability testimony.