Stockdale v. Rehal
| Decision Date | 02 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. A-17-1221.,A-17-1221. |
| Parties | APRIL STOCKDALE, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT, v. DANIEL J. REHAL, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
(Memorandum Web Opinion)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: GARY B. RANDALL, Judge. Affirmed.
Christopher A. Vacanti, of Vacanti Shattuck, for appellant.
Adam E. Astley, of Astley Putnam, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.
In this paternity action, the district court for Douglas County awarded Daniel J. Rehal and April Stockdale joint legal and physical custody of their son. When unable to agree on decisions regarding their son, Daniel was granted final say on matters related to the child's education and religion, while April was granted final say on medical issues affecting the child. Daniel was ordered to pay child support.
Daniel appeals, challenging the district court's decision to award April final decisionmaking authority on medical issues, and its determination of his earning capacity for purposes of calculating child support. April cross-appeals, challenging the district court's decision not to award her a retroactive adjustment in child support to the effective date of the temporary order and challenging the court's award of Sunday and holiday parenting time. We affirm.
Daniel (age 47 at trial) and April (age 38 at trial) are the parents of Luke Rehal, born in 2012. Daniel and April were never married.
On May 5, 2015, April filed a complaint to establish paternity, custody, and child support, alleging that Daniel was Luke's father. She asserted that she and Daniel both resided with Luke until 1 year prior to the filing, and that for the year leading up to the filing the parties had been sharing custody of Luke but that arrangement was no longer in Luke's best interests. April sought "sole temporary and permanent care, custody and control" of Luke, subject to Daniel's "reasonable and specific parenting time." She also sought a "reasonable amount" of temporary and permanent child support. On June 2, April filed a motion for temporary orders regarding custody and support.
In his answer and counterclaim, Daniel admitted he was Luke's father. However, Daniel sought joint physical custody of Luke, and asked the district court to award him sole legal custody. Daniel also filed a motion for temporary custody (joint physical, sole legal) and asked that child support be calculated according to the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines using a joint custody calculation.
In its temporary order filed on September 18, 2015, the district court awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of Luke; the parties were to follow a "7-on-7-off" parenting schedule with transitions occurring Sundays at 5 p.m. Daniel was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $400 per month. Daycare, medical expenses, and all "direct costs" incurred exclusively for Luke were to be paid 60 percent by Daniel and 40 percent by April. The parties were ordered to "meet and confer to decide upon a mutually agreeable pediatrician for the child" and neither party was to make healthcare appointments for the child without providing notice to the other party and coordinating the appointment so that the other party could attend if they chose to do so.
More than a year after the entry of the temporary order, Daniel filed a motion and affidavit for an order to show cause on February 3, 2017. He alleged that since the entry of the temporary order, April failed and refused to (1) reimburse her 40-percent share of Luke's child care, medical, and direct costs (April's alleged obligation was "at least" $3,755), (2) meet and confer to decide upon a mutually agreeable pediatrician, and (3) coordinate Luke's healthcare appointments with Daniel or provide notice to him. On February 3, the district court issued an order directing April to appear and show cause why she should not be found in contempt for failing to comply with the court order. The show cause contempt matter was set for hearing the same day as trial.
Trial took place over 3 days in February 2017. Although other witnesses were called to testify, the only witness testimony relevant to this appeal is that of Daniel and April. The relevant evidence will be discussed as necessary later in this opinion.
On September 15, 2017, the district court filed its decree of paternity. The court stated, "[I]t is difficult to decide a case when the [c]ourt found the actions of both parties to be outrageous, narcissistic and based solely in power controlled issues." "This case after the presentation of days of evidence numbering over 1900 pages and tens of thousands of dollars of expense for the parties and the State of Nebraska has done little to nothing to establish a firmer basis for providing for the welfare of the child." The court awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of Luke and established a parenting time schedule. The court found that joint custody would be in the bestinterests of Luke because "the parties have been able to work together when required during the temporary period, and it has become eminently clear to the court that should either party be granted sole custody of the child that parent would use it against the other, to the detriment of the child." Although the parties were awarded joint legal custody, the court recognized that the parties may not always be able to reach an agreement on issues affecting Luke and it therefore granted April final decisionmaking authority on any medical issues, and Daniel was granted final decisionmaking authority for Luke's education and religion. The court attributed an earning capacity of $200,000 gross per year to Daniel and ordered him to pay $906 per month for child support, commencing on September 1. The court did not find April in contempt, but did order her to pay Daniel $3,755 in expenses per the terms of the temporary order.
Both parties filed motions to alter or amend the judgment. As relevant to this appeal, April alleged that the change in child support should be made retroactive to July 1, 2015 (the start date under the temporary order). She also sought changes to the Sunday and holiday parenting time. In his motion, Daniel asked the district court to award him final decisionmaking authority on any medical issues and for a "correction" to his child support obligation based on the 2015 income information presented to the court (the district court had originally found that after 2014 Daniel offered no further evidence that it could rely on). In its order on the motions to alter or amend, the district court altered the Sunday parenting time schedule. Additionally, the court still determined Daniel's earning capacity was $200,000 gross per year, but "deleted" other language regarding its findings; the court ordered Daniel's counsel to "prepare a Nunc Pro Tunc Decree of Paternity deleting the language referenced herein." The parties' remaining requests were denied. A nunc pro tunc decree of paternity was subsequently filed.
Daniel timely appeals, and April cross-appeals.
Daniel assigns that the district court erred in (1) granting April the final determination on Luke's medical care and (2) its child support award.
April assigns, on cross-appeal, consolidated and restated, that the district court erred in (1) failing to retroactively adjust Daniel's child support obligation to the effective date of the temporary order and (2) its allocation of Sunday and holiday parenting time.
Domestic matters such as child support are entrusted to the discretion of trial courts. See Anderson v. Anderson, 290 Neb. 530, 861 N.W.2d 113 (2015). An appellate court reviews a trial court's determinations on such issues de novo on the record to determine whether the trial judge abused his or her discretion. Id. Under this standard, an appellate court conducts its own appraisal of the record to determine whether the trial court's judgments are untenable such as to have denied justice. Id.
Child custody determinations are matters initially entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and although reviewed de novo on the record, the trial court's determination will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500, 873 N.W.2d 208 (2016).
Parenting time determinations are also matters initially entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and although reviewed de novo on the record, the trial court's determination will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. Id.
In child custody cases, where the credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another. Id.
The testimony from trial reveals the parties clearly have significant disagreement on medical matters for Luke. Daniel generally believes that Luke is healthy, and April does not. At trial, Daniel acknowledged that part of his concern with April having control of Luke's medical needs is that she takes him into the doctor unnecessarily and Daniel felt that Luke was being overprescribed medication. Daniel testified that Luke is "now resistant to amoxicillin as well as Zithromax, which are two mainstream antibiotics." However, April testified that Luke has never been tested for resistance to any antibiotics and she has never been told by medical professionals that Luke is resistant to certain antibiotics; she said that Daniel has told her that Luke is resistant.
The two main areas of contention among the...
To continue reading
Request your trial