Mahler v. Mahler

- 205 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
Dorina Mahler, appellee, v. William N.
Mahler, appellant.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed April 7, 2026. 	No. A-25-175.
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 de novo on the record,
and will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
2. Child Custody: Appeal and Error. 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.
3. Modification of Decree: Child Custody: Proof. Ordinarily, custody
and parenting time of a minor child will not be modified unless there has
been a material change in circumstances showing that the best interests
of the child require modification.
4. ____: ____: ____. Modifying a custody or parenting time order requires
two steps of proof. First, the party seeking modification must show by
a preponderance of the evidence a material change in circumstances
that has occurred after the entry of the previous custody order and that
affects the best interests of the child. Second, the party seeking modifi-
cation must prove that changing the child’s custody or parenting time is
in the child’s best interests.
5. 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.
6. Modification of Decree: Proof. Proof of a material change in cir-
cumstances is the threshold inquiry in a proceeding on a complaint
to modify.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/18/2026 12:38 AM CDT

- 206 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
7. Child Custody. When determining the best interests of the child in the
context of custody, a court must consider, at a minimum, (1) the rela-
tionship of the minor 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, 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. Other relevant consid-
erations for determining best interests include stability in the child’s
routine, minimalization of contact and conflict between the parents, and
the general nature and health of the individual child. No single factor
is determinative, and different factors may weigh more heavily in the
court’s analysis, depending on the evidence presented in each case.
8. ____. The one constant in any proceeding involving a child is that the
child’s best interests are always the standard by which any custody or
parenting time determination is made.
9. Constitutional Law: Parental Rights. A parent’s right to raise his or
her child is constitutionally protected.
10. Child Custody. Nebraska law neither favors nor disfavors any particular
custody arrangement and instead requires all such determinations to be
based on the best interests of the child.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: LeAnne
M. Srb, Judge. Affirmed as modified.
Desirae M. Solomon for appellant.
Ryan M. Hoffman, of Bressman, Hoffman, Jacobs & Quandt,
for appellee.
Riedmann, Chief Judge, and Pirtle and Freeman, Judges.
Pirtle, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
William N. Mahler appeals from an order of the district
court for Douglas County modifying provisions in the parties’
parenting plan. He challenges multiple provisions and alleges
the trial court should have adopted his proposed parenting plan.
Based on the reasons that follow, we affirm as modified.

- 207 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
BACKGROUND
William and Dorina Mahler are the parents of one minor
child, Benjamin Mahler, born in 2014. A decree of dissolution
was entered on December 4, 2019. The decree incorporated an
agreed-upon parenting plan, which awarded the parties joint
legal and joint physical custody with a week-on-week-off reg-
ular parenting schedule, as well as a midweek overnight visit
for the parent who does not have physical custody that week.
Dorina filed a complaint to modify on December 23, 2022,
alleging 	that 	material 	changes 	in 	circumstances 	occurred
that would warrant a change in legal and physical custody,
specifically, William was not allowing Benjamin to partici-
pate in extracurricular activities and other social events, he
was unavailable to Benjamin during his parenting time, he was
causing alienation between Dorina and Benjamin, and he had
not paid his portion of the shared expenses for Benjamin since
the decree was entered. Dorina requested sole legal and sole
physical custody of Benjamin. William subsequently filed an
answer and counterclaim for modification, also requesting sole
legal and sole physical custody of Benjamin.
Prior to trial, the court was informed that physical custody
was not at issue and should remain as set forth in the decree,
except as to the issue of midweek visitation that was submitted
to the court. Evidence was adduced as to the issue of legal
custody, including certain issues the parties had been unable
to agree on.
One issue of dispute between the parties was which school
Benjamin should attend for middle school and high school.
Benjamin was in fifth grade at the time of trial, which was
the last grade level at his school, requiring him to go to a
different school the next school year. Dorina testified that it
was in Benjamin’s best interests to stay in the Millard Public
School District because he had the most friends there and that
because he was experiencing a lot of stress at home, the stress
of a new school with no friends would make it more diffi-
cult for him. Dorina wanted him to attend Andersen Middle

- 208 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
School and then Millard South High School. Dorina purchased
a house in 2020, and it was a 5-minute drive, or a 10-minute
walk, to Andersen Middle School from her house.
William testified that he wanted Benjamin to attend Kiewit
Middle School, which is also in the Millard Public School
District. He stated it takes 7 minutes to drive to that school from
his house. He did not know how far or how long it would take
to drive to Andersen Middle School from his house. William
believed it was in Benjamin’s best interests to attend Kiewit
Middle School because it was less likely that he would have
to make all new friends, since the friends he had in William’s
neighborhood would be attending Kiewit Middle School. He
wanted Benjamin to attend Millard North High School for the
same reason. William acknowledged that the curriculum at
Andersen Middle School is “largely the same” as the curricu-
lum at Kiewit Middle School.
William also testified that he believed Millard South High
School “had a lot of issues” compared to Millard North
High School, and that Millard North is the better school aca-
demically. He stated that Millard South’s dual enrollment for
college classes rate is “maybe like 19 percent” compared to
Millard North High School’s 48 percent.
Regarding extracurricular activities, Dorina testified that
Benjamin was not participating in any at the time of trial.
He was participating in band, but that was during the school
day. Dorina wanted him to participate in activities outside of
school. She stated that William refused to let Benjamin par-
ticipate in any extracurricular activities during his parenting
time. Dorina tried to find activities that did not overlap with
William’s parenting time, but it was difficult to find any. At
one time, Dorina signed Benjamin up for Boy Scouts and
took him to meetings during her parenting time. She stated
she offered to take Benjamin to Boy Scouts or other activities
during William’s parenting time if he did not want to take
him, but William refused to deviate from his parenting time.

- 209 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
Dorina also admitted that William never agreed to Benjamin’s
joining Boy Scouts.
William testified that at one point he agreed to let Benjamin
join the robotics club that met in the morning before school,
but he did not take Benjamin during his weeks of parenting
time. He testified he never agreed to Benjamin’s joining Boy
Scouts. He also told Dorina he would not agree to Benjamin’s
playing soccer.
There was also a conflict between the parties regarding
Benjamin’s cell phone. Dorina testified that Benjamin had a
phone that she paid for and that she installed parental controls
on the phone, including “Bark” and “My Family.” She testified
that these parental controls allowed her to track the location of
Benjamin’s phone. Dorina stated she had occasionally checked
Benjamin’s location during William’s parenting time.
William 	testified 	that 	he 	believed 	Dorina 	was 	using
Benjamin’s phone to track him during William’s parenting
time. He stated that Dorina had contacted him during his
parenting time and asked why Benjamin was at a certain
location. He testified that Dorina has also reached out to third
parties to check on Benjamin’s whereabouts based on his
phone’s location.
There was testimony by the parties that they were unable to
work together regarding Benjamin’s medical matters. Dorina
testified that she wanted Benjamin to go to counseling because
he was struggling with anxiety, relationships, and anger man-
agement and was not wanting to go to school. There was no
agreement reached on this issue.
Dorina learned that Benjamin was going to physical therapy
when she received an explanation of benefits from her health
insurance company. William did not tell her that Benjamin
was going to physical therapy, and William was not allowing
Benjamin to go to sessions during Dorina’s parenting time.
William stated that he informed Dorina when Benjamin’s
doctor referred him to physical therapy. He also testified that

- 210 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
he had recently informed her of a change in Benjamin’s den-
tal appointment.
The trial court ordered it was in Benjamin’s best interests
that the parties continue to share joint legal and joint physical
custody and maintain the current schedule for parenting time
and holidays as outlined in the parenting plan in the decree.
However, the trial court found that there had been material
changes in circumstances since the entry of the decree to war-
rant modifications to certain provisions. The material changes
included in part:
[Dorina] and [William] struggle to communicate effec-
tively to share information and to make joint decisions on
issues affecting the best interests of the minor child such
as the child’s participation in social events and extracur-
ricular activities, participation in therapy as prescribed
by the child’s primary care physician, and which Millard
school he will attend for middle and high schools.
The 	court 	also 	modified 	child 	support 	and 	child-related
expenses.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
William assigns the trial court erred in (1) violating his
due process rights when it found that the parties agreed to
follow Benjamin’s treating doctor’s recommendations and
that the parties agreed they will not attempt to subpoena the
testimony of the treating doctors, counselors, dentists, ortho-
dontists, et cetera, or their records for a disposition or a court
hearing of any kind for any reason; (2) deciding that if there
is a disagreement regarding the choice of providers outside
the current treating professionals, the parties will defer to the
recommendation of the professional who made the recom-
mendation; (3) ordering Benjamin to attend schools based on
Dorina’s address only, instead of Benjamin’s best interests in
attending schools with a better academic reputation, a better
support network, familiarity, and less potential for disruption;
(4) ordering Benjamin to attend summer school when there

- 211 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
was no testimony or evidence regarding Benjamin’s attending
summer school and delegating the authority to determine if
he attends summer school to a third party; (5) ordering that a
parent can unilaterally enroll Benjamin in an activity during
the other parent’s parenting time and not ordering that the
parties shall discuss any school-related and extracurricular
activities that span during both parents’ time; (6) determining
Dorina will have unilateral authority to track William and
third parties through Benjamin’s phone during William’s par-
enting time; and (7) failing to find William’s proposed parent-
ing plan was in Benjamin’s best interests.
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 de novo on
the record, and will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
Jones v. Colgrove, 319 Neb. 461, 24 N.W.3d 1 (2025).
[2] 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. Taylor-Couchman v. DeWitt-Couchman, 29
Neb. App. 950, 964 N.W.2d 320 (2021).
ANALYSIS
[3,4] Ordinarily, custody and parenting time of a minor
child will not be modified unless there has been a material
change in circumstances showing that the best interests of the
child require modification. Lindblad v. Lindblad, 309 Neb.
776, 962 N.W.2d 545 (2021). Modifying a custody or parent-
ing time order requires two steps of proof. Id. First, the party
seeking modification must show by a preponderance of the
evidence a material change in circumstances that has occurred
after the entry of the previous custody order and that affects
the best interests of the child. Id. Second, the party seeking

- 212 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
modification must prove that changing the child’s custody or
parenting time is in the child’s best interests. Id.
[5,6] 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. Conley v. Conley, 33 Neb. App. 98,
11 N.W.3d 671 (2024). Proof of a material change in circum-
stances is the threshold inquiry in a proceeding on a complaint
to modify. See Winkler v. Winkler, 31 Neb. App. 162, 978
N.W.2d 346 (2022).
[7,8] When determining the best interests of the child in
the context of custody, a court must consider, at a minimum,
(1) the relationship of the minor 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, 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. Jones
v. Jones, 305 Neb. 615, 941 N.W.2d 501 (2020). Other rel-
evant considerations include stability in the child’s routine,
minimalization of contact and conflict between the parents,
and the general nature and health of the individual child. Id.
No single factor is determinative, and different factors may
weigh more heavily in the court’s analysis, depending on the
evidence presented in each case. Id. The one constant in any
proceeding involving a child is that the child’s best interests
are always the standard by which any custody or parenting
time determination is made. Id.
Health Care Decisions.
William’s first two assignments of error are based on a
provision in the order of modification involving Benjamin’s
health care. The provision provides:
E. HEALTHCARE DECISIONS: Both parents agree
to follow [Benjamin’s] treating doctor’s and dentist’s

- 213 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
treatment recommendations. Parents will seek treatment
for the child in good faith, solely to maintain and improve
the child’s well-being. Parents will alternate scheduling
regular check-ups for the child and provide each other
ample notice of any upcoming appointments; [William]
shall schedule appointments during his parenting time
during even years; [Dorina] will schedule appointments
during her parenting time during odd years. Parents are
responsible for providing transportation for the child to
medical, dental, and counseling appointments with priority
given to the parent on duty on the day of the appointment
unless they make other arrangements in writing. Parents
agree that they will not attempt to subpoena the testimony
of the treating doctors, counselors, dentists, orthodontists,
etc. or their records for a disposition or a court hearing
of any kind for any reason. Parents agree that [Benjamin]
will 	not 	change 	healthcare 	providers 	without 	them
discussing such changes via Our Family Wizard. If there
is disagreement regarding the choice of providers outside
the current treating professionals, the parties will defer
to the recommendation of the professional who made
the recommendation.
William first assigns that the trial court erred in violating
his due process rights when it found that the parties agreed
to follow Benjamin’s treating doctor’s and dentist’s recom-
mendations and that the parties agreed they will not “attempt
to subpoena the testimony of the treating doctors, counselors,
dentists, orthodontists, etc., or their records for a disposition
or a court hearing of any kind for any reason.”
[9] William’s second assignment of error related to health
care alleges that the trial court erred in deciding that if there
is a disagreement regarding the choice of providers outside
the current treating professionals, the parties will defer to the
recommendation of the professional who made the recom-
mendation. William contends that the parties did not agree to
these modifications as the trial court indicated and that there

- 214 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
was no evidence that such modifications were in Benjamin’s
best interests. We agree, and find the trial court’s imposition
of these provisions is not supported by the record and is an
abuse of discretion. We understand the trial court’s frustration
with the parties given their multiple motions and court filings;
however, the health care provisions went too far. We note that
a parent’s right to raise his or her child is constitutionally pro-
tected. See In re Interest of Jahon S., 291 Neb. 97, 864 N.W.2d
228 (2015). Consequently, we modify the court’s order and
substitute the following provision in place of the health care
provision quoted above:
E. HEALTHCARE DECISIONS: Parents will seek
treatment for the child in good faith, solely to maintain
and improve the child’s well-being. Parents will alternate
scheduling regular check-ups for the child and provide
each other ample notice of any upcoming appointments;
William shall schedule appointments during his parenting
time during even years; Dorina will schedule appointments
during her parenting time during odd years. Parents are
responsible for providing transportation for the child to
medical, dental, and counseling appointments with priority
given to the parent on duty on the day of the appointment
unless they make other arrangements in writing. Parents
agree that the child will not change healthcare providers
without them discussing such changes via Our Family
Wizard. If there is disagreement regarding the choice
of providers outside the current treating professionals,
the parties shall attempt to minimize repeated litigation
by using the mediation process outlined in Nebraska’s
Parenting Act prior to resorting to litigation and only
utilizing judicial intervention as a last resort.
School Choice Decisions.
William 	assigns 	that 	the 	trial 	court 	erred 	in 	ordering
Benjamin to attend schools based on Dorina’s address only,
instead of considering Benjamin’s best interests in attending

- 215 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
schools with better academic reputations, better support net-
works, familiarity, and less potential for disruption. The school
choice 	provision 	in 	the 	order 	for 	modification 	provides:
“[Benjamin] shall be enrolled in Millard Public School District
schools as determined by [Dorina’s] address (Andersen Middle
School and Millard South High School) unless the parents
agree otherwise . . . .”
At the time of trial, Benjamin was in the fifth grade and the
following school year he would start middle school. Dorina
and William did not agree on which middle school or high
school Benjamin would attend. Dorina wanted Benjamin to
attend Andersen Middle School based on the proximity of the
school to her house. She also believed it would be less stressful
for Benjamin than at another school. William believed it was
in Benjamin’s best interests to attend Kiewit Middle School
because it was less likely that he would have to make all new
friends. He wanted Benjamin to attend Millard North High
School for the same reason. William believed Millard South
“had a lot of issues” compared to Millard North, and that
Millard North was the better school academically.
William testified that he researched the school options for
Benjamin, but he did not present any evidence to support his
allegations that one middle school or one high school was
academically better than another. He does not explain what
type of research he did or where his dual enrollment num-
bers for both high schools came from. Further, he admitted
that Kiewit Middle School’s curriculum is “largely the same”
as the curriculum at Andersen Middle School. In addition,
the schools that each party favored were in the same school
district. We determine the trial court did not abuse its discre-
tion in ordering that Benjamin would attend the schools that
Dorina preferred.
Summer School Attendance.
The provision in the order for modification regarding sum-
mer school attendance states in part: “[Benjamin] shall be

- 216 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
allowed to participate in summer school if the child asks to
participate, he is advised to participate in summer school by
the school officials, if at least one parent can cover the cost, or
if he qualifies for a scholarship or free attendance.”
William assigns the trial court erred in ordering Benjamin
to attend summer school, when there was no testimony or
evidence regarding Benjamin’s attending summer school, and
in delegating the authority to determine if he attends summer
school to a third party. He argues that without any evidence,
the trial court has directed Benjamin to participate in summer
school. He suggests that because Benjamin will be attending
public school, “common-sense dictates there is free access
to summer school.” Brief for appellant at 32. And therefore,
the order reads that Benjamin shall attend summer school
every year since it is free through public education. William
suggests this deprives the parties of the fundamental right to
determine Benjamin’s educational needs and delegates the
decision on whether he will participate in summer school to
school officials.
We disagree with William’s understanding of the summer
school provision. The trial court did not order Benjamin
to attend summer school, nor did it delegate the authority
to determine his attendance to a third party. The provision
regarding summer school states, in part, “[Benjamin] shall be
allowed to participate in summer school if the child asks to
participate, [or] he is advised to participate in summer school
by the school officials . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) The above
language creates the option for Benjamin to attend summer
school in the event he wants to attend, or if he needs to attend
for academic success. The provision does not obligate the par-
ties to send Benjamin to summer school, but, rather, it aims
to prevent future conflict between the parties while upholding
the best interests of Benjamin. We conclude the trial court did
not abuse its discretion by including this provision in the order
of modification.

- 217 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
School-Related and/or Extracurricular Activities.
William assigns the trial court erred in ordering that a
parent can unilaterally enroll Benjamin in an activity during
the other parent’s parenting time and in not ordering that the
parties shall discuss any school-related and extracurricular
activities that occur during both parents’ time. The provision
at issue states:
Parents agree to discuss any school-related and extracur-
ricular activities that span during both parents’ time . . . .
[Benjamin] shall be allowed to be in at least one extra-
curricular activity enrolled by [Dorina] and/or [William].
This would total of [sic] two (2) activities at a time, one
(1) chosen by [Dorina] and one (1) chosen by [William]
unless the parents agree otherwise . . . . Additionally,
either parent can enroll the child in activities that happen
only during their parenting time, that do not conflict with
existing activities, and that they pay for on their own.
. . . .
Parents will provide the transportation for the child
to and from extracurricular activities with priority given
to the parent on duty unless they agree otherwise in
writing. If one party is unwilling to take [Benjamin] to the
activity, the other parent will be allowed to pick up and
take to the activity and return the minor child to the other
parent when the activity is over.
William argues that this provision allows Dorina to dictate
and withhold parenting time from William for an unagreed-
upon activity and is an improper delegation of the court’s
responsibility and a parent’s right to parent his or her child
as the parent sees fit. He contends that a parent should not be
allowed to schedule an activity that occurs during the other
parent’s time without the parent’s express consent.
First, the provision states that the parties will discuss
any school-related and extracurricular activities that occur
during both parties’ parenting time. Next, the provision applies
equally to both parties. William can enroll Benjamin in an

- 218 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
activity that occurs during Dorina’s parenting time, just as
Dorina can enroll Benjamin in an activity that occurs during
William’s parenting time. And further, the provision limits
each parent to choose only one activity that affects the other
parent’s time, unless the parties agree otherwise. In addition,
if the parent with custody for the week does not want to take
Benjamin to the activity the other parent chose, the other par-
ent can pick up Benjamin, take him to the activity, and return
him to the parent with custody that week.
It was clear from the evidence that the parties have different
opinions and ideas about Benjamin’s participation in extracur-
ricular activities. Therefore, it was necessary for the trial court
to make a decision that would resolve the ongoing conflict
between the parties. Allowing each party to enroll Benjamin in
one extracurricular activity that overlaps with the other party’s
parenting time will not significantly impede either party’s par-
enting time with Benjamin. The provision supports Benjamin’s
best interests as it allows him to participate in extracurricu-
lar activities without the conflict between his parents. This
assignment of error fails.
Benjamin’s Phone.
Next, William assigns the trial court erred in determining
Dorina will have unilateral authority to track William and third
parties through Benjamin’s phone during William’s parenting
time. The provision in the order of modification provides:
“The Minor Child, Benjamin, shall use the phone provided by
[Dorina] to communicate with both parents, siblings, friends,
etc. unless parents agree otherwise . . . . Both parents shall
have access to any safety monitoring software installed on
child’s phone . . . .”
Dorina admitted that she had used a tracking application on
Benjamin’s phone to track his location during William’s par-
enting time. William claims that Dorina has “boundary issues”
and that Dorina, with the only authority to install any tracking

- 219 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
device, will continue to track Benjamin during William’s par-
enting time.
The trial court did not order that Dorina would have uni-
lateral authority to track William and third parties through
Benjamin’s phone. Rather, the court ordered that both parties
were permitted access to any safety monitoring software on
Benjamin’s phone. Both parties were given equal access to
monitor Benjamin’s location. It is in Benjamin’s best interests
for both of his parents to be able to locate him, especially as he
gets older and has more independence. The trial court did not
abuse its discretion by including this provision.
William’s Proposed Parenting Plan.
Finally, William assigns that the trial court erred in failing
to find that his proposed parenting plan was in Benjamin’s best
interests and in failing to adopt it.
[10] Nebraska law neither favors nor disfavors any partic-
ular custody arrangement and instead requires all such deter-
minations to be based on the best interests of the child. See
State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933, 932
N.W.2d 692 (2019). Further, 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.
Taylor-Couchman v. DeWitt-Couchman, 29 Neb. App. 950,
964 N.W.2d 320 (2021).
The trial court heard and considered all the evidence pre-
sented by both parties before reaching its decision. As in most
modification cases, there was conflicting evidence presented
by the parties on many issues. We give weight to the trial
court’s decision to not adopt William’s proposed parenting
plan. The court apparently found that Dorina’s testimony
was more credible and that William’s proposed parenting
plan was not in Benjamin’s best interests. This assignment of
error fails.

- 220 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
MAHLER v. MAHLER
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 205
CONCLUSION
We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in the pro-
vision regarding health care decisions for Benjamin, and we
modify the provision as set forth in the opinion. The remainder
of the trial court’s order of modification is affirmed.
Affirmed as modified.