(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
Cited in
41
cases (
21 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case:
Randy S. v. Nicolette G., 924 N.W.2d 48 (Neb. 2019).
Randy S. v. Nicolette G., 924 N.W.2d 48 (Neb. 2019).
· 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, 883 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 13× “19 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2930 (1) (Cum. Supp.”
Blank v. Blank, 930 N.W.2d 523 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 16× “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.”
Franklin M. v. Lauren C., 969 N.W.2d 882 (Neb. 2022).
· 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, 914 N.W.2d 478 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
· 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, 7 N.W.3d 845 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 14× “However, because the Nebraska Legislature has limited domestic abuse in the Parenting Act to acts associated with bodily harm and not provided that stalking triggers § 43-2932’s safety considerations, I concur in the majority opinion of this court.”
Chmelka v. Chmelka, 953 N.W.2d 288 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 12× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Michelle asserts, restated, that the district court abused its discretion in (1) failing to find this is a case involving domestic abuse as defined in Nebraska’s Parenting Act, (2) awarding joint legal and physical custody, (3) awarding equal parenting time,…”
Jones v. Colgrove, 24 N.W.3d 1 (Neb. 2025).
· 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, 992 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 5× “Paw was originally from Burma, and he helped her learn English and tutored her.”
Wright v. Wright, 961 N.W.2d 834 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “ween parents through an intermediary or in a protected setting”; “[r]estraints on the parent from communication with or proximity to the other parent or the child”; “[d]enial of overnight physical custodial parenting time”; and “[a]ny other constraints or conditions deemed…”
Hernandez v. Dorantes, 994 N.W.2d 46 (Neb. 2023).
· cites it 2× “[14] We have previously established that courts asked to make SIJ determinations are not required to make determinations favorable to the party seeking them, and may conclude that there was insufficient evidence or that the evidence adduced was not credible.”
Gandara-Moore v. Moore, 952 N.W.2d 17 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 8× “§ 43-2923 (6) (Reissue 2016) provides that in determining custody and parenting arrangements: [T]he court shall consider the best interests of the minor child, which shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of .”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932(1): 5 cases
Franklin M. v. Lauren C., 969 N.W.2d 882 (Neb. 2022).
“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., 924 N.W.2d 48 (Neb. 2019).
“The **476 district court did not make special written findings pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (Reissue 2016).”
Mann v. Mann, 7 N.W.3d 845 (Neb. 2024).
“However, because the Nebraska Legislature has limited domestic abuse in the Parenting Act to acts associated with bodily harm and not provided that stalking triggers § 43-2932’s safety considerations, I concur in the majority opinion of this court.”
Franklin M. v. Lauren C., 969 N.W.2d 882 (Neb. 2022).
“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., 969 N.W.2d 882 (Neb. 2022).
“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
Hopkins v. Hopkins, 883 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. 2016).
“19 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2930 (1) (Cum. Supp.”
Fales v. Fales, 914 N.W.2d 478 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
“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., 924 N.W.2d 48 (Neb. 2019).
“The **476 district court did not make special written findings pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 (Reissue 2016).”
Franklin M. v. Lauren C., 969 N.W.2d 882 (Neb. 2022).
“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, 7 N.W.3d 845 (Neb. 2024).
“However, because the Nebraska Legislature has limited domestic abuse in the Parenting Act to acts associated with bodily harm and not provided that stalking triggers § 43-2932’s safety considerations, I concur in the majority opinion of this court.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932(1)(b)(i): 1 case
Mann v. Mann, 7 N.W.3d 845 (Neb. 2024).
“However, because the Nebraska Legislature has limited domestic abuse in the Parenting Act to acts associated with bodily harm and not provided that stalking triggers § 43-2932’s safety considerations, I concur in the majority opinion of this court.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932(1)(b)(ix): 1 case
Franklin M. v. Lauren C., 969 N.W.2d 882 (Neb. 2022).
“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, 930 N.W.2d 523 (Neb. 2019).
“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.”
Fales v. Fales, 914 N.W.2d 478 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
“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., 969 N.W.2d 882 (Neb. 2022).
“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, 7 N.W.3d 845 (Neb. 2024).
“However, because the Nebraska Legislature has limited domestic abuse in the Parenting Act to acts associated with bodily harm and not provided that stalking triggers § 43-2932’s safety considerations, I concur in the majority opinion of this court.”
Hopkins v. Hopkins, 883 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. 2016).
“19 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2930 (1) (Cum. Supp.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932(a)(1): 3 cases
Randy S. v. Nicolette G., 924 N.W.2d 48 (Neb. 2019).
“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.