S-23-0608 Asia R. Mann n/k/a Asia R. Harrison (Appellant) v. Brian L. Mann (Appellee)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge J. Russell Derr
Attorneys: Aaron F. Smeall (Smith, Slusky, Pohren & Rogers, L.L.P. for Appellant) and Kathryn D. Putnam, (Astley Putnam, P.C., L.L.O. for Appellee)
Civil: Modification of Decree of Dissolution of Marriage
Proceedings below: The district court entered an order sustaining Appellee’s Complaint to Modify the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage and overruled Appellant’s counterclaim. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The district court abused its discretion when it failed to find that Appellee had committed domestic intimate partner abuse against Appellant; 2) The district court abused its discretion in failing to comply with the mandates set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2932 and failing to develop a parenting plan that complies with this statute; 3) The district court abused its discretion in placing the burden of proof for purposes of the custody modification on Appellant; 4) The district court abused its discretion in modifying the holiday schedule to require exchanges that do not address the safety considerations imposed by Neb. Rev. Stat. §43-2932; 5) The district court abused its discretion when it declined to award Appellant sole legal and physical custody of the children; 6) Alternatively, the district court erred when it declined to make a less significant changes to the parenting plan to ensure the safety of Appellant and the children; 7) The district court abused its discretion in giving Appellee legal custody over education, and allowing Appellee to enroll the children in a school district that was not contemplated by the parties at the time of trial; 8) The district court abused its discretion in awarding retroactive child support to Appellee and ordering him to provide health insurance; and 9) The district court erred in failing to award attorney’s fees to Appellant.
Appellee makes the following assignment of error on cross-appeal: 1) The district court incorrectly interpreted the UCCJEA and erred by determining that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Maleah D.