(1) When the court
is required to develop a parenting plan:
(a) If a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates, the
court shall determine whether a parent who would otherwise be allocated custody,
parenting time, visitation, or other access to the child under a parenting
plan:
(i) Has committed child abuse or neglect;
(ii) Has committed child abandonment under section 28-705;
(iii) Has committed domestic intimate partner abuse; or
(iv) Has interfered persistently with the other parent's
access to the child, except in the case of actions taken for the purpose of
protecting the safety of the child or the interfering parent or another family
member, pending adjudication of the facts underlying that belief; and
(b) If a parent is found to have engaged in any activity
specified by subdivision (1)(a) of this section, limits shall be imposed that
are reasonably calculated to protect the child or child's parent from harm.
The limitations may include, but are not limited to:
(i) An adjustment of the custody of the child, including
the allocation of sole legal custody or physical custody to one parent;
(ii) Supervision of the parenting time, visitation, or other
access between a parent and the child;
(iii) Exchange of the child between parents through an intermediary
or in a protected setting;
(iv) Restraints on the parent from communication with or
proximity to the other parent or the child;
(v) A requirement that the parent abstain from possession
or consumption of alcohol or nonprescribed drugs while exercising custodial
responsibility and in a prescribed period immediately preceding such exercise;
(vi) Denial of overnight physical custodial parenting time;
(vii) Restrictions on the presence of specific persons while
the parent is with the child;
(viii) A requirement that the parent post a bond to secure
return of the child following a period in which the parent is exercising physical
custodial parenting time or to secure other performance required by the court;
or
(ix) Any other constraints or conditions deemed necessary
to provide for the safety of the child, a child's parent, or any person whose
safety immediately affects the child's welfare.
(2) A court determination under this section shall not be
considered a report for purposes of inclusion in the central registry of
child protection cases pursuant to the Child Protection and Family Safety Act.
(3) If a parent is found to have engaged in any activity
specified in subsection (1) of this section, the court shall not order legal
or physical custody to be given to that parent without making special written
findings that the child and other parent can be adequately protected from
harm by such limits as it may impose under such subsection. The parent found
to have engaged in the behavior specified in subsection (1) of this section
has the burden of proving that legal or physical custody, parenting time,
visitation, or other access to that parent will not endanger the child or
the other parent.
Notes of Decisions
Randy S. v. Nicolette G. (2019)
neb · cites it 23×
“The **476 district court did not make special written findings pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (Reissue 2016).”
Hopkins v. Hopkins (2016)
neb · cites it 13×
“19 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2930 (1) (Cum. Supp.”
Blank v. Blank (2019)
neb · cites it 16×
“As such, the court made no additional findings pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (3) (Reissue 2016).”
Franklin M. v. Lauren C. (2022)
neb · cites it 36×
“Where a preponderance, or the greater weight, of the evidence demonstrates that a parent has committed one of the listed actions in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (1)(a) (Reissue 2016), the obligations of § 43-2932 are mandatory.”
Fales v. Fales (2018)
nebctapp · cites it 13×
“Because the district court failed to make special written findings as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (3) (Reissue 2016), we vacate the district court's order and remand the cause for further proceedings.”
Mann v. Mann (2024)
neb · cites it 14×
“Harrison claims that Mann’s conduct of stalking of which he was convicted amounts to “domestic intimate partner abuse” under the Parenting Act, thus triggering the protective require- ments of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (3) (Reissue 2016).”
Chmelka v. Chmelka (2020)
nebctapp · cites it 12×
“Neither the second amended decree of dissolution nor the court’s oral comments from the bench at trial referenced Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (Reissue 2016) or made findings related to that section.”
Jones v. Colgrove (2025)
neb · cites it 14×
“To meet the requirement for “special written findings” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (3) (Reissue 2016), the court must, at a minimum, specifically state that it finds that the children and the other parent may be adequately protected from harm by the limits the court has…”
Kee v. Gilbert (2023)
nebctapp · cites it 5×
“When a court is required to develop a parenting plan, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (1) (Reissue 2016) permits limita- tions to parenting time or other access for a parent if the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates the parent has, among other things, “committed child abuse or…”
Wright v. Wright (2021)
nebctapp · cites it 4×
“§ 43-2932 (1) (Reissue 2016) permits limita- tions to parenting time or other access for a parent if the pre- ponderance of the evidence demonstrates the parent has, among other things, “committed child abuse or neglect,” committed “domestic intimate partner abuse,” or…”
Hernandez v. Dorantes (2023)
neb · cites it 2×
“If a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates, the court shall determine whether a parent who would otherwise be allocated custody [or] parenting time[: h]as committed child abuse or neglect; .”
Gandara-Moore v. Moore (2020)
nebctapp · cites it 8×
“She specifically argues that the court erred in relying on McNeese’s report, disregarding Keady’s opinion, failing to consider the children’s best inter- ests, failing to include adequate domestic violence protections, and including a vague and ambiguous transition plan.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932(1) — 5 cases
Franklin M. v. Lauren C. (2022)
neb
“Where a preponderance, or the greater weight, of the evidence demonstrates that a parent has committed one of the listed actions in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (1)(a) (Reissue 2016), the obligations of § 43-2932 are mandatory.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932(1)(a) — 7 cases
Randy S. v. Nicolette G. (2019)
neb
“The **476 district court did not make special written findings pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (Reissue 2016).”
Mann v. Mann (2024)
neb
“Harrison claims that Mann’s conduct of stalking of which he was convicted amounts to “domestic intimate partner abuse” under the Parenting Act, thus triggering the protective require- ments of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (3) (Reissue 2016).”
Franklin M. v. Lauren C. (2022)
neb
“Where a preponderance, or the greater weight, of the evidence demonstrates that a parent has committed one of the listed actions in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (1)(a) (Reissue 2016), the obligations of § 43-2932 are mandatory.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932(1)(a)(iii) — 1 case
Franklin M. v. Lauren C. (2022)
neb
“Where a preponderance, or the greater weight, of the evidence demonstrates that a parent has committed one of the listed actions in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (1)(a) (Reissue 2016), the obligations of § 43-2932 are mandatory.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932(1)(b) — 13 cases
Fales v. Fales (2018)
nebctapp
“Because the district court failed to make special written findings as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (3) (Reissue 2016), we vacate the district court's order and remand the cause for further proceedings.”
Randy S. v. Nicolette G. (2019)
neb
“The **476 district court did not make special written findings pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (Reissue 2016).”
Franklin M. v. Lauren C. (2022)
neb
“Where a preponderance, or the greater weight, of the evidence demonstrates that a parent has committed one of the listed actions in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (1)(a) (Reissue 2016), the obligations of § 43-2932 are mandatory.”
Mann v. Mann (2024)
neb
“Harrison claims that Mann’s conduct of stalking of which he was convicted amounts to “domestic intimate partner abuse” under the Parenting Act, thus triggering the protective require- ments of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (3) (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932(1)(b)(i) — 1 case
Mann v. Mann (2024)
neb
“Harrison claims that Mann’s conduct of stalking of which he was convicted amounts to “domestic intimate partner abuse” under the Parenting Act, thus triggering the protective require- ments of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (3) (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932(1)(b)(ix) — 1 case
Franklin M. v. Lauren C. (2022)
neb
“Where a preponderance, or the greater weight, of the evidence demonstrates that a parent has committed one of the listed actions in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (1)(a) (Reissue 2016), the obligations of § 43-2932 are mandatory.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932(3) — 24 cases
Blank v. Blank (2019)
neb
“As such, the court made no additional findings pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (3) (Reissue 2016).”
Fales v. Fales (2018)
nebctapp
“Because the district court failed to make special written findings as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (3) (Reissue 2016), we vacate the district court's order and remand the cause for further proceedings.”
Franklin M. v. Lauren C. (2022)
neb
“Where a preponderance, or the greater weight, of the evidence demonstrates that a parent has committed one of the listed actions in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (1)(a) (Reissue 2016), the obligations of § 43-2932 are mandatory.”
Mann v. Mann (2024)
neb
“Harrison claims that Mann’s conduct of stalking of which he was convicted amounts to “domestic intimate partner abuse” under the Parenting Act, thus triggering the protective require- ments of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (3) (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932(a)(1) — 3 cases
Randy S. v. Nicolette G. (2019)
neb
“The **476 district court did not make special written findings pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (Reissue 2016).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.