Conley v. Conley

- 98 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
Krista K. Conley, appellant, v.
Jason D. Conley, appellee.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed August 13, 2024. 	No. A-23-662.
1. Modification of Decree: Child Custody: Visitation: Child Support:
Appeal and Error. Modification of a judgment or decree relating to
child custody, visitation, or support is a matter entrusted to the discre-
tion of the trial court, whose order is reviewed by an appellate court de
novo on the record, and will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
2. Visitation: Appeal and Error. Parenting time determinations are mat-
ters initially entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and although
reviewed de novo on the record, the trial court’s determination will nor-
mally be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
3. Judgments: Words and Phrases. An abuse of discretion occurs when
a trial court bases its decision upon reasons that are untenable or unrea-
sonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason,
and evidence.
4. Modification of Decree: Child Custody: Proof. Custody of a minor
child will not ordinarily be modified absent a material change in circum-
stances, which shows either that the custodial parent is unfit or that the
best interests of the child require such action.
5. ____: ____: ____. It is the burden of the party seeking modification to
show a material change in circumstances.
6. Modification of Decree: Child Custody: Words and Phrases. A mate-
rial change in circumstances is the occurrence of something that, if it
had been known at the time the most recent custody order was entered,
would have persuaded that court to decree differently.
7. Modification of Decree: Child Custody. Circumstances having
occurred before the most recent custody order are relevant in a modi-
fication proceeding only insofar as they bear on whether the change
in circumstances since the most recent custody order are material and
substantial.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 07:31 AM CDT

- 99 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
8. ____: ____. Before custody is modified, it should be apparent that any
material change in circumstances alleged will be permanent or continu-
ous, not merely transitory or temporary.
9. Child Custody. In determining whether there has been a material
change in circumstances, if a child is of sufficient age and has expressed
an intelligent preference, the child’s preference is entitled to consider-
ation, alongside other factors.
10. Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Witness credibility and the weight
to be given to testimony is within the province of the trial court. An
appellate court will consider the fact that the trial court saw and heard
the witnesses and observed their demeanor while testifying, and will
give great weight to the trial court’s judgment as to credibility.
11. Visitation. In formulating a parenting plan, the best interests of the chil-
dren are the primary and paramount considerations.
12. Modification of Decree: Child Custody: Parties: Jurisdiction. In a
custody modification case, a court lacks jurisdiction over nonparties
and has no authority to restrict their independent decision to attend the
children’s events.
13. Child Support: Rules of the Supreme Court. Although child support
should generally be set by the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines, the
guidelines offer flexibility and guidance, while understanding that not
every child support scenario will fit neatly into a calculation structure.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Todd
O. Engleman, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
C.G. (Dooley) Jolly, of Adams & Sullivan, P.C., L.L.O., for
appellant.
Kristina B. Murphree and John Andrew McWilliams, of
Gross, Welch, Marks & Clare, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.
Moore, Riedmann, and Bishop, Judges.
Riedmann, Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Post divorce proceedings, the relationship between a mother
and two of her children deteriorated. The father sought a
custody modification, and the mother filed a counterclaim,

- 100 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
asserting parental alienation by the children’s father. The dis-
trict court rejected her argument and modified both custody
and the parenting plan in favor of the father. The mother
appeals. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm as modified.
II. BACKGROUND
Krista K. Conley and Jason D. Conley were married in
January 1993 and have three children: Charlie Conley (born
in 2005), Sophie Conley (born in 2008), and Elliott Conley
(born in 2013). A divorce trial was held in October 2020, and a
decree was entered in September 2021. Pursuant to a stipulated
parenting plan, the parties were awarded joint legal custody
of the three children and joint physical custody of Sophie and
Elliott, to be exercised on a “3-2-2” schedule with a 2-week
rotation. Jason was awarded sole physical custody of Charlie,
and Krista was awarded parenting time with Charlie every
Wednesday evening and every other weekend from Friday
through Sunday.
1. Contempt Action
On November 24, 2021, Krista filed a contempt action
against Jason. She asserted, in part, that Jason was not abiding
by the decree’s parenting time provisions and the provisions
regarding the parties’ communication. Krista filed another
contempt action on December 22, in which she asserted Jason
was in willful violation of several court orders. She alleged
that Jason was allowing Charlie to decide whether to attend
parenting time with her, was “impart[ing] his perspectives
about [Krista] to Charlie,” and had “almost entirely destroyed
any hope [Krista has] of having a future with Charlie [and
has] moved on to Sophie.”
In response to Krista’s applications for a contempt order,
Jason filed a complaint to modify the divorce decree. He
requested that the parenting plan be revised and that he be
awarded sole legal and sole physical custody of Sophie and
sole legal custody of Charlie.

- 101 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
Following a hearing in January 2022 on Krista’s complaint
for contempt, the court found that Jason had willfully and
contumaciously violated certain provisions of the parenting
plan and the dissolution decree. Specifically, it found that
Jason had “engaged in forcibly and intentionally placing the
children of the parties in the middle of decisions regarding
parenting time and other issues.” It further found that Jason’s
“actions have empowered the children to negotiate parent-
ing time and other parenting matters directly with [Krista] in
direct violation of the parenting plan and the best interest of
the minor children.”
Prior to imposing a purge order for Jason, the district court
had a discussion with Charlie and Sophie on the record. It
provided them with a copy of the purge order and explained
its provisions to them. It advised the children that it did
not just expect them to follow the provisions, but, rather, it
“demand[ed]” it. It stated:
So starting off, neither parent will pick up the kids dur-
ing the other parents [sic] parenting time, period. There
will be no more calling dad to have dad come get me at
moms [sic], during moms [sic] parenting time. It’s over,
done. . . . I took a lot of your parents [sic] decision mak-
ing away by this as well. I’ll decide what’s going to go
on. So they have to make specific requests to changes
[sic] things, but the point is we’re going to stop call-
ing dad to come pick us up during moms [sic] parenting
time, we’re going to stop causing all kinds of problems
and hopefully the way I’ve fashioned it, there won’t be a
need for it.
It further forbade the parents and children from audio or
video recording each other without the other’s knowledge.
Importantly, it imposed a 2-month temporary parenting sched-
ule that was to be followed “[w]ithout deviation, without
negotiation, and without discussion.” The temporary schedule
provided parenting time for Krista as follows:

- 102 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
Elliott — Parenting time shall be every Sunday com-
mencing at 4pm and concluding on Wednesday at drop-
off at school or 9am.
Sophie — Parenting time shall be every Thursday from
after school or 3:00 pm until 7:30 pm[] and every other
weekend commencing on Sunday at 4pm and concluding
on Wednesday at drop-off at school or 9am. This schedule
shall commence February 6, 2022.
Charlie — The parenting schedule shall be every
Wednesday from after school or 3:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.
Every other weekend beginning on Friday after school
or 3:00 p.m. until Saturday at 3:00 p.m. This weekend
schedule shall commence on February 4, 2022.
If exchanges are not thru school, the parent ending
their parenting time is responsible for dropping off the
children at the other parents [sic] at the designated time.
As a result of the purge order, the parties stipulated to
stay the modification proceedings. In April 2022, a hearing
was held on the parties’ compliance with the purge order.
The parties reported a “marked improvement” of the parent-
ing time, with the exception of Sophie. A subsequent hearing
was held in June, and the court found that Jason had purged
himself of contempt. It reinstated the parenting plan contained
in the divorce decree and lifted the stay of the modification
proceedings.
2. Modification Proceedings Resume
Jason filed an amended application to modify custody, par-
enting time, and child support on July 18, 2022. He sought
sole legal custody of Charlie, sole legal and physical custody
of Sophie, and a reduction of Krista’s parenting time for all
three children. Krista filed a counterclaim in which she alleged
that Jason had engaged in conduct to alienate Krista from the
children. She sought sole legal custody and joint physical cus-
tody of all three children. Trial was held in March 2023.

- 103 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
(a) Charlie
The evidence at trial revealed a highly strained relation-
ship between Krista and both Charlie and Sophie. Charlie, age
17 at the time of trial, testified that if he had been asked 1½
years before trial, he would have said he hated his mother. At
the time of trial, however, he explained that although he does
not “hate” her, he believes she is not a good person to have
in his life and he does not want to be a part of hers. Prior to
the imposition of the temporary parenting time order under
the purge plan, Charlie would run away from his mother’s
house, he would call his father, and his father would pick him
up. Because the district court told him he could no longer do
that under the purge plan, he stopped. However, he did not
interact with his mother; rather, he would spend nearly all his
mother’s parenting time either at work or with friends. When
he was at Krista’s house, he would spend his time in his bed-
room. He testified that more time with Krista increased his
stress; however, Krista testified that while the purge plan was
in effect, her relationship with Charlie improved.
Charlie explained that his parents’ separation occurred
after an argument between his parents in September 2019,
which he says he witnessed. He stated that Krista claims
Jason pushed her to the ground; however, Charlie denied
that happening. The police eventually arrived at the house
because Krista called Jason’s out-of-town sister and relayed
her version of the events, and his sister called the 911 emer-
gency dispatch number. Jason was handcuffed and placed in
a police cruiser, but was eventually released and never cited.
After that, Krista fled the house with Sophie and Elliott for
5 weeks. Charlie stayed with Jason during that time period.
Charlie later relayed his memory of the incident to Krista that
did not include Jason’s pushing her, and Krista told him he
was lying.
Charlie described two occasions on which Krista “call[ed]
the police on [him].” One time involved an argument between
him and Krista, and the other time was because he would

- 104 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
not get in Krista’s car because he did not want to stay at her
house. Both of those incidents, however, occurred before the
contempt hearing.
Charlie’s reasons for wanting to distance himself from Krista
include a lack of trust and a lack of respect for her. He com-
plained that Krista tells him she loves him “excessively” and
uses words of affirmation instead of trying to work through
problems with him. He accused her of ruining relationships he
had established with friends. And based upon prior incidents
where Krista had recorded him without his knowledge, he feels
like she brings up topics to bait him into an argument so she
can record it and hold it against him. In sum, Charlie regarded
her as “a very antagonistic person.”
(b) Sophie
Sophie, age 14 at the time of trial, last spoke to her mother
on August 26, 2022. She remembers the specific date because
she had written an affidavit for an August hearing indicat-
ing she wanted less time with her mother, but the court did
not order it. The affidavit is an 11-page, single-spaced docu-
ment, in which Sophie described everything she dislikes about
Krista. Shortly thereafter, Sophie stopped speaking to her.
Sophie testified that she started having problems with Krista
sometime in 2021. She stated that she does not like the way
Krista treats her and that she does not trust her. Sophie com-
plained that Krista would read Sophie’s text messages from
her friends and from Jason, she would limit Sophie’s screen
time, and she would say she was not recording Sophie when
she was. Sophie relayed a particular occasion when Krista
took Sophie’s bedroom door off its hinges because Sophie was
locking it at night. Krista said Sophie had to spend more time
with her to get it back.
Sophie was homeschooled until seventh grade. She described
Krista’s showing up at her middle school on her first day, “act-
ing like a crazy person.” According to Sophie, Krista tried
to take a picture of her and then asked Sophie “to go take a

- 105 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
picture with some random person.” Sophie won a citizenship
award later that year, and the school requested that Krista
write some comments describing Sophie, which were read to
Sophie’s class. Sophie found Krista’s comments “embarrass-
ing” because Krista referred to her as “spunky” and being
“beautiful on the inside and out.” Sophie included this as one
of the reasons she should spend less time with Krista.
According to Sophie, she would rather not spend any time
at Krista’s apartment but realizes that is unrealistic. Krista
began taking Sophie to a therapist, Dr. Glenda Cottam, in
November 2022. Because it is family therapy, Krista is in the
room with Sophie and Cottam. Sophie does not want to con-
tinue with Cottam because she feels “attacked” and that the
therapist is “on [her] mom’s side.” When Sophie told Cottam
she did not want to continue therapy, Cottam responded that
they needed more time together. As a result, Sophie walked
out and waited outside for the remainder of the session. Jason
told Sophie she needed to keep going, so now Sophie attends,
but refuses to speak.
(c) Cottam
Cottam met with Krista and Sophie seven times beginning
November 23, 2022. She reviewed a copy of Sophie’s affida-
vit discussed above and spent 3 days going over its contents
with Krista because it contained “a lot of pretty horrible stuff.”
After meeting Sophie, Cottam described her as “incredibly
rude.” According to Cottam, Sophie’s major complaints were
that Krista did not listen, invaded her privacy, read through her
text messages, and yelled at her. Sophie had wonderful memo-
ries with Jason but could not recall any wonderful moments
with Krista.
Cottam testified that Sophie “totally hates” Krista and will
not give her another chance. She stated that “I find that a lot
of kiddos that are even physically abused, will not reject their
parent in the extreme way that I saw with Sophie’s just total
rejection of her mother. It was extreme.” She also noted that

- 106 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
Sophie appeared “stony,” without reaction to how her words
made Krista feel. Cottam indicated that there were situations,
such as Krista’s calling the police on Charlie, that supported
Sophie’s feelings of distrust. However, Cottam did not believe
that Sophie’s rejection of Krista was “rational” and Cottam
indicated that Sophie exhibited some “cognitive distortions.”
Although not allowed to give an opinion on whether paren-
tal alienation was occurring, Cottam testified that “paren-
tal alienation is much worse than simple estrangement.”
“[E]strangement might involve a justified rejection of a par-
ent,” whereas “alienation is . . . unjustified [in] the eyes of
a mature individual.” Cottam outlined several factors indica-
tive of parental alienation, many of which Sophie exhib-
ited. Potential indicators of alienation include a complete
dichotomy in which the child idolizes one parent and hates
the other, strong alignment with one parent and total rejection
of the other without a reasonable explanation, a child’s belief
that his or her beliefs are his or her own without anyone
persuading them, parroting a parent’s phrases and scenarios,
rejecting not only the parent but everyone and everything
associated with that parent, making absurd rationalizations
for rejecting the parent, and being uncaring about hurting the
targeted parent.
In addition to meeting with Krista and Sophie, Cottam has
had seven sessions with Krista and Elliott. She also met with
Jason for a little less than 2 hours over two occasions and
described him as having “really, really . . . strong negative
feelings towards the mom.” She noted that both Jason and
Sophie commented on privacy and Krista’s sanity. Cottam
also received information from both attorneys and had a con-
ference call with both attorneys. She had also spoken with
Rodney Burger, Sophie’s individual therapist. Cottam recom-
mended individual therapy for Krista with Sarah Batter. Cottam
was stepping down as the family therapist, however, because
Sophie “just hates” her.

- 107 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
(d) Burger
Burger is a licensed, independent mental health practitioner.
He began his treatment of Sophie about 1½ years before trial.
Although Jason mows his lawn, Burger denied having any
social relationship with him. Burger diagnosed Sophie with
adjustment disorder with anxiety, as well as with depression.
Unlike Cottam, Burger described Sophie as “very polite,
cooperative, talkative at times.” He described her relation-
ship with Krista as “antagonistic at best.” She has expressed a
desire to never see her mother again, but he explained to her
that because Krista is her mother, she is always going to be a
part of her life; Sophie needs to try to make the best of the sit-
uation. Burger relayed that Sophie feels like she is not being
heard, so when she is at Krista’s house, she isolates herself in
her room. He attributes Sophie’s attitude to the divorce, and
he was unaware that in early 2021 she had a good relationship
with her mother. He did not involve Krista in therapy with
Sophie because Sophie refuses to talk to Krista in therapy and
has asked him not to talk to Krista.
(e) Batter
Because of the relationship issues Krista has with Charlie
and Sophie, and at the recommendation of Cottam, Krista
sought individual therapy with Batter, a licensed independent
clinical social worker. At the time of trial, Batter had met
with Krista 17 times since September 2022 and their sessions
focused primarily on Krista’s asking what she could do better.
Batter diagnosed Krista with adjustment disorder. Similar to
Cottam, Batter did not provide an opinion on whether parental
alienation was occurring but discussed the topic in general
terms. She defined estrangement as “children rejecting a parent
for a legitimate reason” and parental alienation as “children
rejecting the parent for no legitimate reason.” According to
Batter, “Parental alienation is the children’s . . . rejection of
one parent, based on the influence of the other parent.”

- 108 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
Batter relayed having viewed a video taken by Krista of
Charlie and Sophie tearing down birthday decorations that
Krista had put up. Krista indicated to Batter that she recorded
events because she was fearful people would not believe
what was occurring. Batter also discussed statements made
by Krista relating to Jason’s having a gambling problem and
being financially and physically abusive to her. In Krista’s
description of the incident of September 2019, she told Batter
that Jason pushed her to the floor and his family called the
police. Batter did not recall, however, how Jason’s family
became aware of the incident.
(f) Jason
Jason’s recollection of the September 2019 incident was
different. He recalled that Krista had been in a “mood” for
the prior week because Jason suggested she stop homeschool-
ing the children. That morning at breakfast, Krista was being
rude to him and Charlie was with them in the kitchen having
breakfast. The phone rang, and the “caller ID” indicated it was
Jason’s parents. As Jason went to answer the phone, Krista
tried to grab the phone out of his hand. According to Jason,
she “took a step back and she sat on the ground. She pointed
at the phone and started saying, you pushed, you pushed me.
Call 911.” At this point, Charlie was in the hallway but could
see what had happened in the kitchen. Jason denied push-
ing Krista.
After the police had come and gone and Jason and Charlie
left for a preplanned event, Krista picked up Sophie and
Elliott from a friend’s house and left with them for about 5
weeks. Charlie remained with Jason during that time, and he
only saw the other two children a couple of times in a public
place. Krista would not disclose where they were staying.
Jason testified that Sophie and Elliott currently have a
“3-2-2” schedule and that Charlie is with Krista every other
weekend from 3 p.m. Friday until 3 p.m. Sunday and from 3

- 109 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
p.m. Wednesday until 3 p.m. Thursday; the next Wednesday
he is there from 3 p.m. until 8 p.m. According to Jason, there
have been no exchange problems since the purge order was
entered in February 2022. The purge order changed parent-
ing from February through July 4. Jason reported that the
children liked the purge order schedule better, but after it
ended, parenting time went back to the schedule set forth in
the decree. Jason filed a motion for temporary orders, and
Sophie authored the affidavit previously described in support
of the motion. However, the parenting schedule remained the
same. Jason explained that he filed the motion for modifica-
tion because Sophie and Elliott kept talking about it.
Because Sophie was struggling with some of the divorce
issues, Jason told her that if she ever wanted to talk to some-
one, he had a suggestion. A short while later, she stated she
wanted to pursue it, so Jason made an appointment with
Burger. He recommended Burger because he had briefly con-
versed with him through Jason’s lawn business. Sophie had
been seeing Burger pretty consistently for about 1½ years at
the time of trial.
According to Jason, he had noticed a “big change” in Charlie
in the 6 months prior to trial—his grades had improved, and he
was taking responsibility for his own life and working toward
the future. Charlie took it upon himself to arrange a college
campus tour in Lincoln, Nebraska, and went by himself. Jason
has also noticed that Charlie is being more respectful and
polite when it comes to Krista.
Jason attended parent-teacher conferences for Sophie and
described them as “fun” because teachers “gush about what a
great girl” she is. He stated that when the purge plan ended, it
was “rough” for Sophie, and that her desire to spend less time
with Krista has never wavered.
Because of the court’s admonitions following the contempt
proceeding, Jason changed his behavior. He made sure Krista
got her parenting time and the children cooperated in going.

- 110 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
He made sure they knew that no matter what was going on
at Krista’s house, they could not leave, and that he would not
pick them up anymore. He also talked to the children about
how they are allowed to talk to Krista—what is acceptable and
what is not. Jason requested sole legal and physical custody of
Charlie and Sophie.
(g) Krista
In response to Jason’s amended motion for modification,
Krista filed a counterclaim and sought joint physical custody
of all three children with a 50/50 parenting time schedule,
as well as sole legal custody of all of them. She requested
that Jason’s parenting time be contingent upon the children’s
behaving properly when with Krista and that she be the
one to make that determination based on identifiable objec-
tive criteria.
Krista confirmed that Sophie has not spoken to her since
August 2022. Sophie does not accept gifts from Krista, “touch
her [birthday] cake,” or speak to Krista in therapy. In fact,
other than therapy, Sophie will not be in the same room as her.
Krista perceived a change starting in the fall of 2021. Prior
to that time, Krista and Sophie would participate in many
mother/daughter activities. Krista also offered a photograph
and a video to support her testimony that through November
23, they had a good relationship. Krista first heard Sophie
claim she was afraid of her in December. In February 2022,
Sophie began removing her belongings from Krista’s apart-
ment and taking them to Jason’s house. By August, she had
removed everything.
Krista’s recollection of Sophie’s first day of seventh grade
differed from Sophie’s testimony. A video taken by Krista of
the event was received into evidence that depicts Krista out-
side of the school, Sophie giving her a hug, and then Krista
returning to her vehicle. Krista confirmed the video had not
been altered and captured the entire interaction. Contrary to
Sophie’s testimony, there was no request that Sophie find a
“random person” to have her picture taken with.

- 111 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
Although Sophie had stated in her affidavit that prior to
entering public school she had never written a paragraph,
Krista testified that between 2019 and 2021, Sophie took
five, 12-week writing classes at a learning center for home-
schooled students. An invoice for one of the classes and two
of the essays Sophie wrote for that class were received into
evidence.
Krista thinks Charlie influences Sophie and Elliott by par-
roting Jason’s perspective about Krista to them. Krista relayed
that Mother’s Day of 2019 with the children was “wonderful”
and that Charlie had made her a special gift. By Mother’s
Day of 2020, Charlie had told her he did not consider her his
mother anymore and would not acknowledge the holiday in
any way.
According to Krista, her relationship with Charlie improved
during the purge plan. He had initiated a phone call with her,
let her drive him to be with a friend, and accepted her offer to
buy him fast food. She believed that because Charlie did not
have a choice on whether to go to her house, it made it easier
for him. Since Charlie got a car in July 2022, she sees him 5 to
10 minutes a week.
Despite the strained relationship Krista has with Charlie and
Sophie, she testified that she believed it was in the children’s
best interests to have equal time with her and Jason. It was her
opinion that if the responsibility of choosing to be with her
was not removed from the children, her relationship with them
would continue to get worse.
(h) Elliott
The court also held an in camera interview with Elliott,
who was 10 years old at the time. Elliott indicated a prefer-
ence for the visitation schedule in effect during the purge plan
where he could spend more time with Jason and less time
with Krista. He explained that there is “a lot” of arguing at
Krista’s house between him and Krista and between Sophie

- 112 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
and Krista and that he “get[s] a lot of stress and headaches
like almost every day.”
(i) Testimony Regarding Extended Family
Charlie, Elliott, and Jason all expressed concerns with
Krista’s parents and stepparents recording them. Krista’s father
posted a “GoFundMe” page in which he attempted to raise
funds to cover Krista’s legal costs arising out of the need to
end an abusive relationship. Charlie and Sophie both saw the
posting. Sophie also complained of Krista’s parents interfering
with her job at the farmer’s market.
3. Order Modifying Decree
The court entered a 15-page order modifying the decree. It
made numerous findings of fact in discussing the testimony
and exhibits offered at trial and assessed the witnesses’ cred-
ibility. It found that both Charlie and Sophie were credible and
that their testimony was based on their personal experiences
and interactions with Krista and Krista’s extended family. It
rejected Krista’s claim of parental alienation, stating:
[Krista] went into great detail in attempting to allege
parental alienation by trying to argue the children exhib-
ited an absence of guilt about their feelings toward
[Krista], the borrowed phrases and scenarios from [Jason],
they rejected [Krista’s] extended family, and that she had
such a positive relationship prior to the divorce that any
estrangement at this point was clearly due to the actions
or campaign of [Jason], the Court does not agree and
does not find evidence to support these arguments. The
issue the Court has with these arguments is the children
were able to identify specific conduct that [Krista], and
her extended family, engaged in that lead them to their
feelings of estrangement and desire for a change in par-
enting time. These were all independent of the interac-
tions between [Krista] and [Jason,] and it is [Krista’s]

- 113 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
continued focus of solely blaming [Jason] and failing to
acknowledge her own actions/interactions with the minor
children that has led to this estrangement.
The court found that a material change in circumstances
had occurred that affected the best interests of the children
and that the current custody and parenting time was not in
the children’s best interests. The court awarded Jason sole
legal custody of Charlie and Sophie. It retained joint legal
custody of Elliott because neither party sought to change it.
The court determined that the relationships between Krista
and the children had deteriorated to such a level that joint
physical custody of Sophie was no longer in her best interests
and that Krista’s parenting time with all three children should
be modified. The court awarded Jason sole physical custody
of Charlie and Sophie and awarded the parties joint physical
custody of Elliott.
The court modified the parenting plan and then amended it
pursuant to Jason’s motion to alter and amend. The final par-
enting plan is as follows:
CHARLIE
Mon. 	Tues. 	Wed. 	Thurs. 	Fri. 	Sat. 	Sun.
Week 1
Dad 	Dad 	Dad 	Dad 	Mom at
3 p.m.
Mom 	Mom until
3 p.m.
Dad at
3 p.m.
Week 2
Dad 	Dad 	Dad until
3 p.m.
Mom 3 to
8 p.m.
Dad at
8 p.m.
Dad 	Dad 	Dad 	Dad

- 114 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
SOPHIE
Mon. 	Tues. 	Wed. 	Thurs. 	Fri. 	Sat. 	Sun.
Week 1
Dad 	Dad 	Dad 	Dad until
3 p.m.
Mom 3 to
8 p.m.
Dad at
8 p.m.
Mom at
3 p.m.
Mom 	Mom
until
7 p.m.
Dad at
7 p.m.
Week 2
Dad 	Dad until
3 p.m.
Dad 	Dad until
3 p.m.
Mom 3 to
8 p.m.
Dad at
8 p.m.
Dad 	Dad 	Dad
ELLIOTT
Mon. 	Tues. 	Wed. 	Thurs. 	Fri. 	Sat. 	Sun.
Week 1
Dad 	Dad 	Dad 	Dad until
3 p.m.
Mom at
3 p.m.
Mom 	Mom 	Mom
Week 2
Mom until
3 p.m.
Dad at
3 p.m.
Dad 	Dad until
3 p.m.
Mom at
3 p.m.
Mom 	Mom
until
9 a.m.
Dad at
9 a.m.
Dad 	Dad
The court further ordered that Sophie continue her indi-
vidual therapy with Burger until he no longer felt it was nec-
essary or until further order of the court. Following a hearing
on Jason’s motion to alter or amend, it ordered the parties to
select a family therapist from a list of five therapists. As to

- 115 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
payment for Sophie’s individual therapy, the court ordered
Jason to be responsible for the first $250 per year out-of-
pocket expenses and the remainder to be divided with Krista’s
paying 25 percent and Jason paying 75 percent. For family
therapy, Krista was to be responsible for 70 percent of the
expenses and Jason was responsible for 30 percent.
Although a child support worksheet was prepared that
would require Krista to pay child support of $208 per month,
the 	court 	deviated 	from 	this 	amount. 	It 	determined 	that
because Charlie was primarily meeting his own needs and
because therapy was being ordered, no child support would
be ordered until Elliott was the only minor child. At that time,
Jason was required to pay child support of $262 per month.
Krista appeals.
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Krista assigns that the district court abused its discretion by
(1) modifying legal and physical custody, parenting time, and
parenting plan provisions; (2) awarding Jason sole legal and
sole physical custody of the two older children and reducing
Krista’s parenting time with the youngest child; (3) formulat-
ing a parenting plan that ignored the Nebraska Parenting Act
and was contrary to the minor children’s best interests; (4)
considering evidence that predated the entry of the dissolution
decree; (5) denying Krista attorney fees and costs; and (6)
misapplying the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] Modification of a judgment or decree relating to child
custody, visitation, or support is a matter entrusted to the dis-
cretion of the trial court, whose order is reviewed by an appel-
late court de novo on the record, and will be affirmed absent
an abuse of discretion. Lindblad v. Lindblad, 309 Neb. 776,
962 N.W.2d 545 (2021).
[2] 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

- 116 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
Bornhorst v. Bornhorst, 28 Neb. App. 182, 941 N.W.2d 769
(2020).
[3] An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court bases
its decision upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable
or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason,
and evidence. Id.
V. ANALYSIS
Krista’s first three assigned errors relating to custody and
parenting time are all predicated on her argument that the
district court erred in finding that Charlie and Sophie were
estranged from her, rather than finding that Jason had engaged
in parental alienation. Therefore, we address these assign-
ments of error together under the overarching umbrella of
parental alienation, but first we set forth the legal framework
for a custody modification.
1. Modification of Custody
and Parenting Time
(a) Legal Framework
[4,5] Custody of a minor child will not ordinarily be modi-
fied absent a material change in circumstances, which shows
either that the custodial parent is unfit or that the best interests
of the child require such action. Jaeger v. Jaeger, 307 Neb.
910, 951 N.W.2d 367 (2020). It is the burden of the party
seeking modification to show a material change in circum-
stances. Id. Specifically, the movant must show two elements:
First, that since entry of the most recent custody order, there
has been a material change in circumstances that affects the
child’s best interests, and second, that it would be in the
child’s best interests to change custody. Id.
[6-8] A material change in circumstances is the occurrence
of something that, if it had been known at the time the most
recent custody order was entered, would have persuaded that
court to decree differently. Id. Circumstances having occurred

- 117 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
before the most recent custody order are relevant only insofar
as they bear on whether the change in circumstances since
the most recent custody order are material and substantial.
Id. Before custody is modified, it should be apparent that any
material change in circumstances alleged will be permanent
or continuous, not merely transitory or temporary. Id.
[9] In determining whether there has been a material change
in circumstances, “‘if a child is of sufficient age and has
expressed an intelligent preference, the child’s preference is
entitled to consideration,’ alongside other factors.” Jaeger v.
Jaeger, 307 Neb. at 920, 951 N.W.2d at 376, quoting Leners v.
Leners, 302 Neb. 904, 925 N.W.2d 704 (2019), disapproved on
other grounds, State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303
Neb. 933, 932 N.W.2d 692 (2019). The amount of consider-
ation will depend on the child’s age and ability to give reasons
for his or her preference. Jaeger v. Jaeger, supra. Where a trial
court’s order demonstrates that the child’s age and reasoning
have been duly considered alongside the child’s stated pref-
erence, we will generally defer to the trial court’s credibility
determinations in our assessment of facts. Id.
Consideration of the child’s best interests involves a com-
bination of both mandatory and permissive factors. Id. Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 43-2923(6) (Reissue 2016) requires that certain
factors must be considered, including (1) the relationship of
the child to each parent prior to the commencement of the
action; (2) the desires and wishes of a sufficiently mature
child, if based on sound reasoning; (3) the general health, wel-
fare, and social behavior of the child; (4) credible evidence of
abuse inflicted on any family or household member; and (5)
credible evidence of child abuse or neglect or domestic inti-
mate partner abuse. Jaeger v. Jaeger, supra.
Other relevant considerations that may also be considered
include the stability of the child’s existing routine, minimi-
zation of contact and conflict between the parents, and the
general nature and health of the child. Id. No one factor is

- 118 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
dispositive, and various factors may weigh more or less heav-
ily, depending on the case. Id.
(b) Rejection of Krista’s
Parental Alienation Claim
[10] Krista assigns that the district court abused its dis-
cretion in awarding Jason sole legal custody of Charlie and
Sophie and sole physical custody of Sophie and in reducing her
parenting time with Elliott. (Per the parties’ prior stipulation,
Jason had been awarded primary physical custody of Charlie
in the decree.) Krista argues that Charlie and Sophie testified
untruthfully and that in accepting their testimony, the district
court “ignored a massive record of parental alienation.” Brief
for appellant at 26. She also argues that the “court should
have placed more emphasis on the testimony of Dr. Cottam.”
Id. However, witness credibility and the weight to be given to
testimony is within the province of the trial court. An appel-
late court will consider the fact that the trial court saw and
heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor while testify-
ing, and will give great weight to the trial court’s judgment as
to credibility. Knapp v. Knapp, 32 Neb. App. 669, 4 N.W.3d
415 (2024).
We recognize that Sophie testified to events that were not
only inconsistent with Krista’s testimony, but also were dis-
proved by documentary evidence. For example, in criticizing
her mother’s homeschooling of her, Sophie claimed that she
had never written a paragraph prior to being enrolled in public
school; however, Krista testified that Sophie had taken at least
five writing classes and produced an invoice for one of those
classes and two essays that Sophie had written while being
homeschooled. Likewise, Sophie’s description of Krista’s pres-
ence at Sophie’s first day of school was contrary to the video
of that same event. However, the district court acknowledged
it did not look at isolated events, but, rather, the totality of
the circumstances, in its determination that parental alienation
had not occurred.

- 119 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
Two of Sophie’s reasons for her disdain for Krista were
Krista’s dishonesty and lack of respect for Sophie’s privacy.
Krista claims Sophie feels this way because Jason has pro-
jected his feelings about her onto Sophie, but there was evi-
dence of specific instances on which Sophie based her feel-
ings. Sophie described in her affidavit that Krista promised
not to attend her dance rehearsal, but she sat in the auditorium
and took pictures. Sophie described another incident where she
saw an active recording application on Krista’s phone; Krista
initially denied recording the children but then admitted that
she had. In the affidavit, Sophie also described instances in
which Krista read Sophie’s text messages on her phone, went
through Sophie’s bag, and removed Sophie’s bedroom door.
Although Sophie’s reaction to these events may or may not be
typical for a 14-year-old girl, we identify them simply to point
out that there were specific incidents Sophie described to sup-
port her lack of distrust that did not involve Jason.
Krista argues that Charlie was unable to articulate anything
specific that had occurred between him and Krista in the last
2 years, but the evidence reveals Charlie has had minimal
interaction with Krista over that time period. His one specific
complaint was that Krista does not listen to him. To support
that, he discussed having told Krista that he does not like
Krista’s mother, yet the weekend before the hearing, Krista
invited her mother to stay at Krista’s apartment when it was
Charlie’s weekend to stay there. Charlie also testified that
he had requested Krista not to ask him, in front of Elliott, to
participate in activities with Elliott, but just the week before
the hearing, she asked Charlie to watch a movie with her
and Elliott. Krista did not deny asking Charlie, in front of
Elliott, to participate in activities, but she tried to explain
it in a broader context. Charlie perceived these as examples
of Krista’s not listening to him and his perception is not
irrational.
Similarly, the district court discussed both Cottam’s and
Batter’s testimony in its order, particularly as it related to the

- 120 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
distinction between parental alienation and estrangement. It
found that the reasons Charlie and Sophie gave for rejecting
Krista were not “‘unjustified’” or “‘irrational.’” It also dis-
cussed many of the factors indicative of parental alienation,
including parroting, an absence of guilt, rejection of extended
family, and borrowed phrases, and found that the children’s
actions and attitudes were based on specific conduct that Krista
and her extended family engaged in and were not a result of
any influence by Jason.
While there was much evidence at the contempt hearing of
Jason’s actions that interfered with Krista’s parenting time,
once Jason was held in contempt and the purge order was
entered, subsequent hearings do not reflect any overt actions
of Jason to support a finding of interference or alienation.
That left the district court to infer that Charlie’s and Sophie’s
rejection of Krista was due to acts of Jason, and it rejected
that proposition. We do not interpret that as a disregard of the
evidence. To the contrary, the order of contempt makes clear
that the court was able to distinguish between alienation and
estrangement.
During the contempt proceedings, the district court recog-
nized that Jason engaged in activities that contributed to the
children’s treatment of Krista but also recognized Krista’s role
in the demise of her relationship with the children. In its order
finding Jason in contempt, it stated:
[Jason’s] actions attempted to exculpate any responsi-
bility for the deterioration of [Krista’s] relationship with
her children. When in reality, it was [Jason’s] actions
which directly impacted, fostered and nurtured the con-
tinued deterioration of [Krista’s] relationship. The Court
noted that [Krista] is not wholly innocent in the issues
that have arisen between [Krista] and the children, but the
Court finds that [Jason’s] continued actions have dramati-
cally impacted the issues and allowed them to grow and
foster unabated.

- 121 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
The district court recognized that despite Jason’s recent
compliance with the purge plan, Krista and Sophie’s relation-
ship continued to suffer. It found that “this is not the result of
any actions by [Jason] or as a result [of] his failure to comply
with the contempt purge/sentencing order.” Consequently, it
allowed the modification hearing to proceed.
As reflected by the district court’s order modifying the
decree, it did not find Krista’s evidence at the modification
hearing persuasive that Jason engaged in further actions to
undermine the children’s relationship with Krista; rather, it
maintained its belief that it was Krista’s interactions with the
children that led to the issues. Contrary to Krista’s argument
that the district court “ignored a massive record of paren-
tal alienation,” brief for appellant at 26, it did not ignore it;
instead, it found the evidence Krista presented did not support
her argument.
As quoted above, the district court rejected Krista’s argu-
ment that the children were exhibiting behaviors reflective of
parental alienation and instead found that the children were
able to identify specific conduct that Krista, and her extended
family, engaged in that led them to their feelings of estrange-
ment and desire for a change in parenting time. It found it was
Krista’s continued focus of solely blaming Jason and failing
to acknowledge her own actions/interactions with the minor
children that led to the estrangement. We find no abuse of dis-
cretion in the district court’s conclusion.
Our conclusion is reinforced by Jason’s testimony that once
the purge order was entered, he changed his behavior. Not only
did he no longer “rescue” the children from Krista’s house,
but he addressed Charlie’s disrespectful communication with
Krista and encouraged Sophie to continue with Cottam despite
her desire to terminate therapy. Both children confirmed this
in their testimony. Although Charlie and Sophie may exhibit
some of the behaviors indicative of parental alienation, the
basis for their attitude toward Krista must be irrational to
rule out estrangement. Because there was evidence of specific

- 122 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
incidents to which the children could point to support their
feelings and because the record does not reveal that Jason
continued to engage in alienating conduct following the purge
order, we agree with the district court’s determination.
Having found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
rejection of Krista’s claim of parental alienation, we turn to
an analysis of whether a material change in circumstances
occurred and whether it was in the children’s best interests to
modify custody and the parenting plan.
(c) Material Change in Circumstances
Prior to the divorce decree being entered, the parties agreed
upon a parenting plan that addressed both legal and physical
custody, which plan was incorporated into the decree. Since
that time, Krista’s relationship with Charlie and Sophie has
deteriorated to the point that it is virtually nonexistent. All
three children expressed an interest in spending less time
with Krista or, conversely, more time with Jason. All three of
them described their time with Krista as “stressful,” including
10-year-old Elliott who complained of headaches nearly every
day he was with her. The situation has become progressively
worse and does not appear transient or temporary.
The record is also clear that Jason and Krista cannot com-
municate effectively to make decisions regarding Charlie and
Sophie. Krista testified that the communication between them
was not good enough to share joint legal custody. Had the
district court been aware that these family dynamics would
arise, surely it would not have awarded custody as it did.
Therefore, we agree that a material change in circumstances
occurred since the entering of the decree. See, Jaeger v.
Jaeger, 307 Neb. 910, 951 N.W.2d 367 (2020); State on
behalf of Slingsby v. Slingsby, 25 Neb. App. 239, 903 N.W.2d
491 (2017) (addressing consideration of child’s preference
and relationship with custodial parent in determining material
change of circumstances for modifying custody). See, also,
Schroeder v. Schroeder, 26 Neb. App. 227, 918 N.W.2d 323

- 123 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
(2018) (affirming finding of material change of circumstances
where parties could not agree on issues involving child).
(d) Children’s Best Interests
To determine whether a change in custody is in a child’s
best interests, § 43-2923(6) requires consideration of several
factors, including (1) the relationship of the child to each par-
ent prior to the commencement of the action; (2) the desires
and wishes of a sufficiently mature child, if based on sound
reasoning; (3) the general health, welfare, and social behavior
of the child; (4) credible evidence of abuse inflicted on any
family or household member; and (5) credible evidence of
child abuse or neglect or domestic intimate partner abuse.
Prior 	to 	commencement 	of 	the 	modification 	hearing,
Krista’s relationship with Charlie and Sophie had already
begun to deteriorate as evidenced by her application for con-
tempt. Although the district court held Jason in contempt and
found him partly responsible for the deteriorated relationships,
it did not completely exonerate Krista. Therefore, as to the first
factor, a change in custody is in the best interests of Charlie
and Sophie.
As to the second factor, both Charlie and Sophie expressed
a desire for a change in custody, and each are sufficiently
mature to have their voices heard. In addition to their express
wishes, we also find support for a change in custody based
upon the environment that Jason has established. Aside from
a less stressful household, the evidence supports that Jason
has a good rapport with the children. When Charlie’s grades
declined, Jason conversed with him about the importance of
school and expressed an understanding of Charlie’s extra-
curricular desires but imparted the importance of balancing
school and a social life. As a result, Charlie’s grades have
improved, and he has been able to prioritize his activities.
Likewise, Sophie appears to have an open dialogue with Jason
as evidenced by Jason’s testimony that she expressed to him
her desire to engage in individual therapy with Burger and to

- 124 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
end family therapy with Cottam. Instead of affirming Sophie’s
desire regarding family therapy, Jason advised her to find
something positive about the sessions.
As children mature into adults, it is imperative that they
have parental guidance, and while it would be ideal for that
guidance to come from both parents, in a situation such as
here, the general health, welfare, and social behavior of the
children is best served by awarding Jason custody. Based on
the evidence, Jason attends to Sophie’s mental health needs
and has addressed with both Charlie and Sophie appropriate
social behavior. Being forced into an environment where both
children isolate themselves in their rooms is not conducive to
their general health, welfare, or social behavior.
Krista has asserted that parental alienation is a form of child
abuse, but because we affirm the district court’s determination
that Jason did not alienate the children, considerations of abuse
are unnecessary. Having considered the required factors, we
find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s award of legal
and physical custody to Jason.
(e) Parenting Time
Krista also assigns the district court abused its discretion in
modifying her parenting time with Elliott. Under the divorce
decree, Krista had parenting time with Elliott on a “3-2-2”
schedule. During week 1, Elliott was with Krista from 3
p.m. on Monday until 3 p.m. on Wednesday. He returned on
Friday at 3 p.m. until Monday at 3 p.m. During week 2, Elliott
was with Krista from 3 p.m. on Wednesday until 3 p.m. on
Friday and returned to Krista at 3 p.m. the following Monday.
Sophie’s schedule was the same. Under the modified schedule,
during week 1, Elliott is with Krista from 3 p.m. on Wednesday
until 3 p.m. on Monday. During week 2, he is with her from 3
p.m. on Wednesday until 9 a.m. on Friday.
[11] In Elliott’s in camera interview with the district court,
he expressed a desire to spend more time with Jason and
indicated a preference for the parenting plan that existed as

- 125 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
part of the purge order; it, in part, eliminated some of the
“back and forth” between the two parents. In formulating
Elliott’s time with each parent, the district court explained
that it crafted a plan to give Elliott “an opportunity to spend
time at his mother’s home with his brother and sister at times
and with his mother alone at times, and to have set and cer-
tain days each week where he will be at both his mother and
father’s residence without an alternating schedule.” In for-
mulating a parenting plan, the best interests of the children
are the primary and paramount considerations. See Winkler
v. Winkler, 31 Neb. App. 162, 978 N.W.2d 346 (2022). We
find that modification of the parenting plan was in Elliott’s
best interests.
Although Elliott was only 10 years old at the time of the
modification hearing, he expressed the angst he experienced
at Krista’s apartment due to the relationship between her
and his siblings. He was articulate in his reasons for want-
ing to spend more time with Jason. The Nebraska Supreme
Court has given a child’s preference significant consideration
typically when the child is over 10 years old. See, Jaeger v.
Jaeger, 307 Neb. 910, 951 N.W.2d 367 (2020); Vogel v. Vogel,
262 Neb. 1030, 637 N.W.2d 611 (2002). Given Elliott’s age
and his articulated reason for a change in the parenting plan,
as well as the district court’s intent to create a parenting plan
to accommodate each child’s time with both parents and with
each other, we find no abuse of discretion in the modified
parenting plan.
(f) Parenting Time With Extended Family
In its parenting plan, the district court ordered the par-
ties to support the minor children’s relationships with both
sets of grandparents and extended family with the exception
of Krista’s father and his wife. As to them, the district court
precluded Krista from inviting them to any of the children’s
extracurricular activities and forbade them from attending the
children’s events and from transporting the children. Krista

- 126 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
argues this was an abuse of discretion. We find no abuse of
discretion in restricting Krista from inviting her father and
his wife to the children’s events; however, we find the court
abused its discretion in preventing them from attending any of
the children’s events, as explained below.
After 	Krista 	filed 	for 	divorce, 	her 	father 	started 	a
“GoFundMe” page to raise money for legal fees, in which
he asserted that Krista was a victim of financial, emotional,
mental, and physical abuse. Charlie and Sophie discovered it
and brought it to Jason. Additionally, Charlie testified to an
incident in which he believed Krista’s father was following
him, and Jason relayed an event, during which Charlie was
present, when Krista’s father threatened to “put [him] in the
hospital.” The record contains additional events of Krista’s
father and stepmother exhibiting their animosity toward Jason
in the presence of the children and episodes of them record-
ing, or appearing to record, him and the children. Jason
requested the provision to exclude them so the children could
enjoy their activities without worrying about a confrontation
with Krista’s father and stepmother.
[12] At a posttrial hearing, the district court explained
that the reason it excluded these grandparents from attending
activities is because it disrupted the children’s lives and the
court was focused on the core family of father, mother, and
children. According to the district court, all of the children
expressed discomfort with these grandparents, and it was
trying to avoid additional issues. We find no abuse of dis-
cretion in the district court’s reasoning or in ordering Krista
not to invite them to the children’s events or allow them to
transport the children. However, because Krista’s father and
his wife were not parties to the modification proceeding, the
court lacked jurisdiction over them, and it had no authority
to restrict their independent decision to attend the children’s
events. See Seemann v. Seeman, 316 Neb. 671, 6 N.W.3d
502 (2024) (district court lacked authority over entities that
were not parties to case). We therefore strike that portion of

- 127 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
paragraph 8 of the parenting plan, which reads “and they may
not attend any extracurricular activities or school events of the
minor children.” We affirm the remainder of paragraph 8.
We are mindful of Krista’s concern that awarding her less
time with the children will lead to further emotional distance
among them; however, we share the district court’s hope that
through both individual and family therapy these relation-
ships will mend. Although at the time of trial, family therapy
had been unsuccessful, this appears to be in part because
Krista unilaterally chose the therapist. Conceivably, the district
court’s collaborative approach of selecting a new therapist
will provide Krista and Sophie a more balanced therapeutic
experience.
2. Evidence That Predated Entry
of Divorce Decree
Krista assigns that the district court abused its discretion
in considering evidence that predated entry of the decree of
dissolution. Because Krista does not point us to any specific
evidence to which she objected at trial, we read her assigned
error as attacking not the admissibility of evidence, but, rather,
the weight given it by the district court. We find no abuse
of discretion.
To find a material change in circumstances, the party mov-
ing for modification must show a change that has occurred
“after the entry of the previous custody order.” Weaver v.
Weaver, 308 Neb. 373, 387, 954 N.W.2d 619, 630 (2021). We
agree that both parties presented evidence that predated and
postdated the entry of the divorce decree, but the evidence
was relevant to show the continuum of the children’s rela-
tionship with Krista. For example, the precipitating event for
Charlie was witnessing his parents’ disagreement in September
2019, before Krista even filed for divorce. His perception of
this event along with the 5-week separation between Krista,
Sophie, and Elliott on one hand, and Charlie and Jason on
the other, greatly affected him. And although Charlie testified

- 128 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
about events that occurred prior to the entry of the divorce
decree, he also identified at least two events that occurred the
week prior to trial in support of his assertion that Krista did
not listen to him.
Krista iterates her credibility arguments regarding Sophie’s
testimony, and we rejected those arguments above. See Knapp
v. Knapp, 32 Neb. App. 669, 4 N.W.3d 415 (2024) (great
weight given to trial court’s credibility determinations). We
find no abuse of discretion by the district court in relying
upon the evidence presented to reach its conclusion.
3. Application of Nebraska
Child Support Guidelines
The district court deviated from the Nebraska Child Support
Guidelines in its child support determination. Rather than
order Krista to pay child support of $208 a month as calcu-
lated under the guidelines, it ordered that she pay a portion of
Sophie’s therapy expenses. Specifically, it ordered:
As to individual mental health counseling for Sophie,
[Jason] shall be responsible for the first $250.00 per year
for out of pocket expenses associated with the individual
therapy for Sophie. After the first $250.00 is paid by
[Jason], the parties shall split the expenses for individ-
ual therapy for Sophie with [Krista’s] paying 25% and
[Jason’s] paying 75%.
As to family therapy for Sophie, Elliott and [Krista],
[Krista] shall be responsible for 70% and [Jason] respon-
sible for 30% for the costs associated with that family
therapy. This breakdown reflects the deviation in child
support relieving [Krista] of the child support obligation
for 3 minor children due to the advanced age and inde-
pendence of the oldest child and for those funds to be
utilized by [Krista] to pay for family therapy to rehabili-
tate her relationship with the other minor children.
Krista assigns that the district court abused its discretion “in
applying the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines.” She argues:

- 129 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
The Court appears to have attempted to give Krista a
break on child support, but in doing so, the court abused
its discretion. In lieu of ordering Krista to pay $208 per
month in child support, the court instructed her to pay $0
but to pay the $208 toward therapy.
Brief for appellant at 39. We disagree with Krista’s reading of
the order on the motion to alter or amend.
The order does not require Krista to pay $208 toward ther-
apy; rather, it requires her to pay 70 percent of family therapy
for herself, Sophie, and Elliott. At the hearing on the motion
to alter or amend, the district court explained that because both
parties were responsible for the children needing therapy, it
was trying to devise an equitable way to pay for that therapy.
Krista’s attorney proposed that Krista pay 25 percent and
Jason pay 75 percent. The court rejected those percentages,
and it instead ordered Krista to pay 70 percent and Jason to
pay 30 percent but deviated from ordering child support to
help offset the cost for Krista.
[13] The child support worksheets indicate a “Pearrow
Calculation,” reflecting a hybrid approach for child support
calculations when neither a sole custody approach nor a joint
custody approach is appropriate. See Pearrow v. Pearrow,
27 Neb. App. 209, 928 N.W.2d 430 (2019). In Pearrow,
we affirmed the use of such a calculation, recognizing that
although child support should generally be set by the guide-
lines, the guidelines offer flexibility and guidance, while
understanding that not every child support scenario will fit
neatly into a calculation structure. See Gress v. Gress, 271
Neb. 122, 710 N.W.2d 318 (2006).
Here, the court ordered family therapy to repair the rela-
tionship between Krista and Sophie and Elliott. The evidence
supports the district court’s finding that although it is Krista’s
relationship with the children that needs mending, Jason is
not without some blame. Therefore, we find no abuse of dis-
cretion in the district court’s order requiring Krista to pay 70
percent of the family therapy costs. An abuse of discretion

- 130 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
33 Nebraska Appellate Reports
CONLEY v. CONLEY
Cite as 33 Neb. App. 98
occurs when a trial court bases its decision upon reasons that
are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against
justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. Windham v. Kroll,
307 Neb. 947, 951 N.W.2d 744 (2020).
Krista also argues that the court ordered her to pay a por-
tion of expenses under Neb. Ct. R. § 4-212 (rev. 2011), even
for Charlie and Sophie for whom she does not have joint
physical custody. We note no reference to § 4-212 in either the
modification order or the order on motion to alter or amend.
Aside from the therapy ordered for Sophie, our review of the
orders reflects only an order for payment of 25 percent of
extracurricular activities for Charlie and Sophie, and we find
no abuse of discretion in this regard.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364.17 (Reissue 2016) requires that a
dissolution decree include “each party’s responsibility for rea-
sonable and necessary medical, dental, and eye care, medical
reimbursements, day care, extracurricular activity, education,
and other extraordinary expenses of the child.” Consequently,
to the extent Krista argues that the district court abused its
discretion in requiring her to pay 25 percent of Charlie’s or
Sophie’s extracurricular expenses, we reject this argument.
4. Denial of Attorney Fees and Costs
Krista assigns the district court erred in denying her attorney
fees and costs and requests that we reverse the modification
order and order attorney fees on remand. Having found no
abuse of discretion by the district court, however, we deter-
mine Krista is not entitled to attorney fees. This assigned
error fails.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm as modified the
district court’s order modifying custody and Krista’s parent-
ing time.
Affirmed as modified.