Janda v. Janda

- 953 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
Tyler J. Janda, appellee, v.
Stephanie R. Janda, now known as
Stephanie R. Danley, appellant.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed June 4, 2024. 	No. A-23-549.
1. Child Custody: Appeal and Error. Child custody determinations are
matters initially entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and
although reviewed de novo on the record, the trial court’s determination
will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
2. Modification of Decree: Child Custody: Proof. Ordinarily, custody
of a minor child will not be modified unless there has been a material
change in circumstances showing either that the custodial parent is unfit
or that the best interests of the child require such action.
3. ____: ____: ____. The showing required to modify custody is a two-
step process: First, the party seeking modification must show a material
change in circumstances, occurring after the entry of the previous cus-
tody order and affecting the best interests of the child. Next, the party
seeking modification must prove that changing the child’s custody is in
the child’s best interests.
4. ____: ____: ____. Proof of a material change in circumstances is the
threshold inquiry in a proceeding on a complaint to modify, because
issues determined in the prior custody order are deemed preclusive in
the absence of proof of new facts and circumstances.
5. Modification of Decree: Words and Phrases. Generally, a material
change in circumstances is the occurrence of something which, had it
been known to the dissolution court at the time of the initial decree or
prior modification, would have persuaded the court to decree differently.
6. Modification of Decree: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Where the
party seeking modification advances multiple reasons for modification,
an appellate court does not consider whether each individual factor
standing alone constitutes a material change; the appellate court instead
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 07:39 AM CDT

- 954 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
considers all the facts and circumstances raised by the evidence to deter-
mine whether there has been a material change.
7. Modification of Decree: Child Custody: Proof. The party seeking
modification of a dissolution decree has the burden to produce sufficient
proof that a material change of circumstances has occurred that warrants
a modification.
8. Modification of Decree: Child Custody. Removal of a child from the
state, without more, does not amount to a change of circumstances war-
ranting a change of custody. Nevertheless, such a move when considered
in conjunction with other evidence may result in a change of circum-
stances that would warrant a modification of the decree.
9. Child Custody. In considering a motion to remove a minor child to
another jurisdiction, the paramount consideration is whether the pro-
posed move is in the best interests of the child.
10. ____. 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.
11. ____. Other relevant considerations include stability in the child’s rou-
tine; minimalization of contact and conflict between the parents; the
general nature and health of the individual child; the moral fitness of
the child’s parents, including sexual conduct; respective environments
offered by each parent; the age, sex, and health of the child and parents;
the effect on the child as a result of continuing or disrupting an existing
relationship; the attitude and stability of each parent’s character; and
parental capacity to provide physical care and satisfy educational needs
of the child.
12. ____. No single factor is determinative, and different factors may weigh
more heavily in the court’s analysis, depending on the evidence pre-
sented in each case. The one constant is that the child’s best interests are
always the standard by which any custody or parenting time determina-
tion is made.
13. Modification of Decree: Child Custody. While the district court is not
necessarily obligated to provide a detailed analysis in a modification
of custody case, it is the best practice for a district court to provide
some detailed analysis in determining what is in the best interests of
the children.

- 955 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
14. Evidence: Appeal and Error. When a finding is not expressly made by
a trial court, an appellate court, in its de novo review, may make such a
finding if the evidence supports it.
15. Evidence: Witnesses: Appeal and Error. When the district court does
not provide an analysis, an appellate court can make little application
of its general rule that in its de novo review, an appellate court consid-
ers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial court saw and heard
the witnesses.
16. Child Custody. The decisions of where a child will reside and attend
school are fundamental decisions that require mutual agreement between
parents who maintain joint legal custody.
17. Child Custody: Intent. A parent’s intentional refusal to promote and
facilitate the other parent’s involvement in a child’s important educa-
tional, religious, and medical needs constitutes a significant factor to
consider when making custody decisions.
18. Child Custody. Although not a completely determinative factor, the
promotion and facilitation of a relationship by one parent with the other
parent is a factor that may be considered when awarding custody.
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Lori
A. Maret, Judge. Affirmed.
Eddy M. Rodell for appellant.
Sean M. Reagan, of Reagan Law Offices, P.C., L.L.O., for
appellee.
Pirtle, Chief Judge, and Riedmann and Welch, Judges.
Pirtle, Chief Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Tyler J. Janda and Stephanie R. Janda, now known as
Stephanie R. Danley, are a divorced couple with four shared
children. Their initial parenting plan gave Stephanie primary
custody of the children, subject to Tyler’s reasonable parent-
ing time. However, after Stephanie sought a modification of
the parenting plan due to their constant disagreements, Tyler
requested that he be given primary custody of the children.
After a trial, the district court for Lancaster County modified
their custody arrangement and gave Tyler physical and legal

- 956 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
custody of the children, subject to Stephanie’s reasonable par-
enting time. Stephanie now appeals that decision. For the rea-
sons that follow, we affirm the decision of the district court.
BACKGROUND
Tyler and Stephanie were married on January 1, 2013.
During their marriage, they had four children: B.J., S.J., R.J.,
and H.J. At the time of trial, B.J. was 10 years old, S.J. was 7
years old, and R.J. and H.J. were both 5 years old. On January
22, 2021, as part of their divorce proceedings, Tyler and
Stephanie entered into a settlement agreement that included
as an attachment the parties’ parenting plan concerning the
visitation and custody of their children. Pursuant to their par-
enting plan, Tyler and Stephanie maintained joint legal cus-
tody of the four children and Stephanie was granted primary
physical custody.
On March 1, 2021, Tyler and Stephanie’s divorce was final-
ized, and the parties maintained the same custody arrange-
ment. At that time, both parties lived in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Pursuant to the arrangement, the parties had a “nine-five”
schedule where Stephanie had the children for 9 days and then
Tyler had them for 5 days. The plan provided that Tyler was
responsible for picking up the children from their school or
Stephanie’s home when his parenting time started and drop-
ping them off when it concluded. The parenting plan required
Stephanie to provide medical insurance for the children and
mandated that both parties inform one another when they
planned to change the residence of the children for more than
30 days.
On October 8, 2021, Stephanie filed a complaint for modi-
fication that alleged she and Tyler were having problems
communicating with one another. Due to this, she sought an
order that directed the parties to communicate solely via an
application for parents (parenting app). Additionally, Stephanie
sought to merge the divorce action with a separate case dealing
with Tyler’s payment of child support and requested the court
reevaluate the amount of child support he owed.

- 957 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
On November 3, 2021, in response to Stephanie’s com-
plaint for modification, Tyler filed an answer and counter-
complaint wherein he sought sole physical and legal custody
of the children. During the pendency of the proceedings, the
district court entered several temporary orders. These orders
included an April 22, 2022, order regarding child support; a
January 6, 2023, order appointing a guardian ad litem (GAL)
for the four children; and a March 10 order concerning the
children’s schooling.
On December 15, 2022, while the modification proceed-
ing was pending, Stephanie moved from Lincoln to Fairbury,
Nebraska. Due to the move, the two school-aged children
switched schools and started attending school in Fairbury.
Tyler took issue with the move, alleging that it impacted his
visitation schedule because it added an approximate hour-
long commute both ways for him to pick up and drop off
the children.
Trial
On March 23, 2023, a trial was held on the parties’ compet-
ing complaints for modification. Several witnesses testified
during the trial, including Tyler and Stephanie.
Stephanie testified that she moved to Fairbury because her
landlord increased her rent and she and the children needed
more room. She stated that she put in an offer on a house in
Fairbury in October 2022, it was accepted on November 1, and
she closed on the home on December 15. However, it was only
after she closed on the home that she informed Tyler she was
moving to Fairbury.
Although Stephanie looked at several houses in the Lincoln
area, she stated that she purchased the home in Fairbury
because of its size and number of bedrooms and because the
purchase price was on the lower end of her budget. Stephanie
testified that when she purchased the house in December 2022,
she did not believe it would impact Tyler’s parenting time
because she was still planning to work in Lincoln. However,

- 958 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
contrary to that claim, she stated that she had started applying
for remote positions as early as October. Then on December
20, citing the prohibitive cost of daycare, she quit her job
in Lincoln and soon began a new job that allowed her to
work from home. She explained that this new job’s flexible
schedule would allow her to watch her two youngest children
throughout the day while she worked. After taking this job,
she enrolled the two school-aged children in Fairbury schools
in early January 2023. However, there was no indication she
discussed this change with Tyler before doing so.
Stephanie also discussed the ongoing issue of her and Tyler
not being able to communicate without arguing. She described
that they had been unable to compromise on transportation,
how to make up for lost parenting time, and how to accom-
modate Tyler’s work schedule. She explained that although
they were temporarily ordered to use a parenting app for
communication, Tyler never set up his account. As such, they
were communicating primarily through text messages. She
described these communications as “combative” and believed
that using a parenting app that logged their communications
would help her and Tyler act more appropriately. Stephanie
also testified to her belief that Tyler’s wife was the one
responding to many of her text messages.
Tyler testified that as a result of Stephanie’s move to
Fairbury, he was unable to parent the children on a “nine-five”
basis because his work hours made it difficult for him to pick
up and drop off the children in Fairbury. He stated that due
to the move, he consistently missed out on 2 of his allotted
5 days of custody. Additionally, he claimed his inability to
engage in full visitation had negatively affected the children
and his relationship with them.
Tyler also mentioned that he had concerns about domestic
violence in Stephanie’s home. He stated that Stephanie had
previously posted on social media about her boyfriend “putting
his hands on her.” He also stated that this boyfriend still stayed
at Stephanie’s home “from time to time.”

- 959 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
Additionally, Tyler testified about his concerns regarding
the creation by Stephanie of an “OnlyFans” account where she
posted explicit sexual content. Stephanie started an OnlyFans
account sometime around the end of 2021 but claimed to have
only posted from the account between August and September
2022. During that period, she posted approximately five nude
pictures of herself and one video of her masturbating. Notably,
in an affidavit Stephanie submitted to the district court in
2022, she denied the existence of this account. Specifically,
in response to Tyler claiming she had the OnlyFans account,
she stated, “This is not true,” and “I don’t know why [Tyler]
would make this claim.”
The ex-husband of Tyler’s wife also testified at trial. The
ex-husband and Tyler’s wife share a daughter. The ex-husband
discussed his recent request to modify the daughter’s custody
due to her claims that Tyler physically abused her. While the
ex-husband was unable to go into detail about the accusa-
tions, he stated they were serious enough for him to request
the custody modification. However, he explained that he never
reported these allegations to law enforcement, Child Protective
Services, or any other authority.
A woman who interacts with Tyler regularly also testified at
trial. She stated that she is married to Tyler’s cousin and that
she had known Tyler for around 4 years, attending approxi-
mately 50 events where he was present. Her testimony was
short, but she testified that Tyler was “an incredible father”
and provided anecdotes about Tyler’s positive interactions with
his children.
The GAL’s report was also entered into evidence. In her
report, the GAL stated it was clear the parties were hav-
ing trouble communicating and the children were affected
by the move to Fairbury. As a result of the move, the GAL
reported the children saw Tyler less and were sad about the
lack of time they were spending with him. She stated that
when she discussed this issue with Stephanie, it was clear
that Stephanie questioned the benefit of Tyler’s having a

- 960 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
relationship with the children. Stephanie’s concerns seemed to
stem from Tyler’s previous abandonment of the children and
her belief that he would abandon them again. The GAL con-
cluded that it was in the children’s best interests to have more
equal time with their parents and advised the court to fashion
a plan that maximized time with each parent.
District Court’s Order
On June 30, 2023, the district court issued an order that
modified the custody arrangement by granting Tyler the physi-
cal and legal custody of the children, subject to Stephanie’s
reasonable parenting time. In its order, the court stated:
[T]he Court finds that a material change in circumstances
exists in that the custody of the minor children should
be modified. The Court notes that [Stephanie] has made
a unilateral decision to move the children to a location
which seriously affected [Tyler’s] parenting time with the
children, and this change has proven to not be in the best
interests of the children.
Additionally, the district court ordered all communications
regarding the minor children to be between Tyler and Stephanie
only and via the “Talking Parents” parenting app. Further, the
court ordered Stephanie to pay $753 per month in child sup-
port that would be lowered once each child reached the age
of majority.
Stephanie now appeals the district court’s order.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Stephanie assigns, restated, the district court erred in grant-
ing Tyler physical and legal custody of the children.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] 	Child 	custody 	determinations 	are 	matters 	initially
entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and although
reviewed de novo on the record, the trial court’s determination
will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. Burton
v. Schlegel, 29 Neb. App. 393, 954 N.W.2d 645 (2021).

- 961 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
ANALYSIS
[2,3] Stephanie asserts the district court erred in finding
that there was a material change in circumstances and, there-
fore, erred in modifying the custody arrangement. Ordinarily,
custody of a minor child will not be modified unless there
has been a material change in circumstances showing either
that the custodial parent is unfit or that the best interests of
the child require such action. Scott v. Dorrance, 32 Neb. App.
213, 995 N.W.2d 226 (2023). The Nebraska Supreme Court
has described this showing as a two-step process: First, the
party seeking modification must show a material change in
circumstances, occurring after the entry of the previous cus-
tody order and affecting the best interests of the child. Id.
Next, the party seeking modification must prove that changing
the child’s custody is in the child’s best interests. Id.
Here, 	neither 	parent 	claimed 	the 	other 	was 	unfit.
Consequently, we focus our review on whether Tyler demon-
strated a material change in circumstances that affected the
children’s best interests and whether Tyler proved that being
granted physical and legal custody was in their best interests.
Material Change in Circumstances
[4-7] Proof of a material change in circumstances is the
threshold inquiry in a proceeding on a complaint to mod-
ify, because issues determined in the prior custody order
are deemed preclusive in the absence of proof of new facts
and circumstances. Lindblad v. Lindblad, 309 Neb. 776, 962
N.W.2d 545 (2021). Generally, a material change in circum-
stances is the occurrence of something which, had it been
known to the dissolution court at the time of the initial decree
or prior modification, would have persuaded the court to
decree differently. Id. Where the party seeking modification
advances multiple reasons for modification, we do not consider
whether each individual factor standing alone constitutes a
material change; we instead consider all the facts and circum-
stances raised by the evidence to determine whether there has

- 962 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
been a material change. Weaver v. Weaver, 308 Neb. 373, 954
N.W.2d 619 (2021). The party seeking modification of a dis-
solution decree has the burden to produce sufficient proof that
a material change of circumstances has occurred that warrants
a modification. Keiser v. Keiser, 310 Neb. 345, 965 N.W.2d
786 (2021).
In its order, the district court found a material change in
circumstances warranting a modification. While the district
court did not provide any analysis as to this change, it noted
that Stephanie had made a unilateral decision to move the
children to a location that “seriously affected” Tyler’s parent-
ing time.
[8,9] Stephanie essentially argues the district court errone-
ously found that her move to Fairbury constituted a material
change in circumstances. She cites Vogel v. Vogel, 262 Neb.
1030, 637 N.W.2d 611 (2002), where the Supreme Court
considered a case in which a father sought a modification
of custody. In that case, the father’s argument alleged solely
that the mother’s anticipated move to Virginia was a change
in circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification. The
court, in affirming the denial of the father’s modification
request, stated:
[R]emoval of a child from the state, without more, does
not amount to a change of circumstances warranting a
change of custody. . . . Nevertheless, such a move when
considered in conjunction with other evidence may result
in a change of circumstances that would warrant a modi-
fication of the decree. . . . In considering a motion to
remove a minor child to another jurisdiction, the para-
mount consideration is whether the proposed move is in
the best interests of the child.
Id. at 1041, 637 N.W.2d at 621. Citing to this passage, Stephanie
argues that because the district court’s order mentioned only
her move to Fairbury as justification for finding a material
change in circumstances, it erred as a matter of law.

- 963 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
Tyler acknowledges that although Stephanie’s move to
Fairbury, standing alone, may not constitute a material change
in circumstances, evidence presented at trial demonstrated
that Stephanie engaged in other behaviors that warranted
the finding. He asserts that Stephanie moved before provid-
ing the requisite notice to him, removed the two school-aged
children from their Lincoln school without notifying him,
created OnlyFans content in the children’s home, refused to
coparent with him, blamed him for not being able to make
the parenting schedule work following her move, and refused
to comply with the existing parenting plan. When accounting
for all these actions and inactions, Tyler asserts the circum-
stances were materially changed beyond Stephanie’s move
to Fairbury.
Based on our de novo review of the record, we cannot
say the district court abused its discretion in finding that a
material change in circumstances occurred. We believe that if
the district court had been aware of Tyler’s and Stephanie’s
issues with amicable communication in conjunction with
Stephanie’s move to Fairbury at the time of its initial decree,
the 	district 	court 	would 	have 	proceeded 	differently. 	See
Weaver v. Weaver, 308 Neb. 373, 954 N.W.2d 619 (2021)
(finding that obstacles to father’s visitation with child was
circumstance that warranted modification).
At trial, both parties discussed their issues communicating
with one another. Stephanie described their combative text
messages as the reason she wanted the court to order them to
communicate via a parenting app. She also spoke about her
belief that Tyler’s wife was the one responding to her text
messages. Tyler then testified that he turned down Stephanie’s
attempts to sit down and discuss their problems “[b]ecause
every conversation [was] very high conflict, and it never
[came] out in any kind of resolution.”
Tyler 	also 	discussed 	how 	their 	communication 	issues
impacted his ability to get copies of the children’s insurance
cards from Stephanie. When he asked for the documents,

- 964 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
Stephanie sent him a picture of a “sticky note” that contained
condescending and insulting language. Additionally, evidence
was put forward showing that Tyler and Stephanie had issues
updating one another on when the children were going to
attend their summer daycare or instead stay home. And further
evidence was adduced in the form of text messages that illus-
trated their inability to compromise given Stephanie’s move
to Fairbury.
In addition to their communication problems, Stephanie’s
move created an obstacle to Tyler’s utilizing his parenting
time. While Tyler and Stephanie do not agree on the exact
amount of time it takes to get to Fairbury from Lincoln, they
both agree it is more than an hour. Therefore, with Tyler’s
being responsible for transporting the children to and from
his home, he must account for several additional hours of
travel, which consequently interferes with his work schedule.
While Tyler testified that his wife has more flexibility to
drive the farther distance to pick up the children, he asserted
the additional travel time reduces the amount of time he
spends with his two oldest children by nearly half.
Additionally, the GAL’s report corroborated the difficulties
Tyler and Stephanie had in communicating and the obstacles
presented by Stephanie’s move to Fairbury.
Based 	on 	this 	record, 	we 	determine 	the 	district 	court
did not abuse its discretion in finding a material change in
circumstances.
Best Interests
[10-12] 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 fam-
ily or household member; and (5) credible evidence of child

- 965 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
abuse or neglect or domestic intimate partner abuse. Jones v.
Jones, 305 Neb. 615, 941 N.W.2d 501 (2020). Other relevant
considerations include stability in the child’s routine; minimal-
ization of contact and conflict between the parents; the general
nature and health of the individual child; the moral fitness
of the child’s parents, including sexual conduct; respective
environments offered by each parent; the age, sex, and health
of the child and parents; the effect on the child as a result of
continuing or disrupting an existing relationship; the attitude
and stability of each parent’s character; and parental capac-
ity to provide physical care and satisfy educational needs of
the child. See id. See, also, Robb v. Robb, 268 Neb. 694, 687
N.W.2d 195 (2004). No single factor is determinative, and dif-
ferent factors may weigh more heavily in the court’s analysis,
depending on the evidence presented in each case. Jones v.
Jones, supra. The one constant is that the child’s best interests
are always the standard by which any custody or parenting
time determination is made. Id.
[13] With these legal standards in mind, we again point
out that the district court’s order did not provide any analysis
regarding the children’s best interests other than the intrastate
move between Lincoln and Fairbury, which is approximately
“70 ish minutes.” We take this opportunity to discourage this
practice. While we recognize that the district court is not
necessarily obligated to provide a detailed analysis in a modi-
fication of custody case, it is the best practice for a district
court to provide some detailed analysis in determining what
is in the best interests of the children. Few areas of the law
present more impactful situations than custody arrangements
for children.
[14,15] While the absence of this analysis is disappoint-
ing and unfortunate, it is not dispositive, however, because
the Supreme Court has recognized that even when a finding
is not expressly made by a trial court, an appellate court,
in its de novo review, may make such a finding if the evi-
dence supports it. See id. However, we do note that when the

- 966 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
district court does not provide an analysis, we can make little
application of our general rule that in our de novo review,
we consider, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial
court saw and heard the witnesses. See Weaver v. Weaver,
308 Neb. 373, 954 N.W.2d 619 (2021). Despite this, after
our de novo review of the record in this case, we cannot say
the district court abused its discretion in finding that Tyler’s
having physical and legal custody of the children was in their
best interests.
[16,17] The record clearly demonstrates that Tyler and
Stephanie have difficulty coparenting. These issues go beyond
ordinary communication problems and bleed into acts of
deception. Stephanie did not tell Tyler that she was moving
more than an hour away from Lincoln until she had already
closed on the house in Fairbury. Although Stephanie claimed
she did not anticipate this adversely affecting Tyler’s parent-
ing time because she was still planning to work in Lincoln,
she had started to apply for remote jobs nearly 2 months prior.
Then, without consulting Tyler, she removed B.J. and S.J.
from their school in Lincoln and enrolled them in Fairbury
schools. The Supreme Court has previously stated that the
decisions of where a child will reside and attend school are
fundamental decisions that require mutual agreement between
parents who maintain joint legal custody. See Vyhlidal v.
Vyhlidal, 311 Neb. 495, 973 N.W.2d 171 (2022). We have
also stated that a parent’s intentional refusal to promote and
facilitate the other parent’s involvement in a child’s impor-
tant educational, religious, and medical needs constitutes
a significant factor to consider when making custody deci-
sions. Burton v. Schlegel, 29 Neb. App. 393, 954 N.W.2d 645
(2021). By waiting to inform Tyler about her move and the
two school-aged children’s change in schools until the effects
of her decisions were complete, Stephanie precluded Tyler
from having any say in the matters. These decisions not only
adversely affected his parenting time, but they also affected
the children.

- 967 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
[18] The increased travel time between Lincoln and Fairbury
conflicted with Tyler’s work schedule and precluded him from
making full use of his scheduled parenting time. Although not
a completely determinative factor, the promotion and facilita-
tion of a relationship by one parent with the other parent is
a factor that may be considered when awarding custody. Id.
Despite Stephanie’s claim that she had no intention of dimin-
ishing Tyler’s parenting time with her move, her unilateral
actions resulted in precisely that outcome.
More so, Stephanie also testified that the move was “not
ideal” for the children because they were “very used to” the
prior custody arrangement. The GAL report expanded on this
sentiment by indicating that the children had “clearly been
affected” by the move because they were sad about spending
less time with Tyler. Further, the GAL reported that the move
“seem[ed] to have put stress on the two older children since
they [were] not able to see [Tyler] as much as they previ-
ously had.” Stephanie was seemingly unconcerned about these
effects because the report also indicated that she questioned
the benefits the children received from having a relationship
with Tyler. Based on this information, it is not apparent that
Stephanie was acting in the best interests of the children by
moving to Fairbury, changing their schools, and doing so with-
out informing Tyler beforehand.
Additionally, the record displayed other concerning behav-
iors by Stephanie that support the district court’s decision
that the change in custody was in the children’s best interests.
Tyler testified about Stephanie’s social media post wherein
she discussed her boyfriend “putting his hands on her.” Tyler
stated this boyfriend still stayed with Stephanie from time to
time, which the children corroborated when speaking with
the GAL. They told the GAL that the boyfriend resided in
Stephanie’s home “‘most of the time’” when he was not
“‘out in the truck.’” Also concerning is Stephanie’s explicit
sexual posts on her OnlyFans account and her subsequent

- 968 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
32 Nebraska Appellate Reports
JANDA v. JANDA
Cite as 32 Neb. App. 953
inconsistent testimony about when she had an account, the
quantity of her posts, and when she posted the content from
the account.
Given Stephanie’s failure to notify Tyler about her move
until after she already closed on her house, her unilateral deci-
sion to change the two school-aged children’s school in the
middle of the school year, her posting explicit sexual content
on her OnlyFans account, her denial in her affidavit that she
did not have such an account, the alleged domestic violence in
her home, and the adverse effects the move had on the chil-
dren, we are unable to find the district court abused its discre-
tion in finding that Tyler’s having physical and legal custody
of the children was in their best interests.
CONCLUSION
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in awarding Tyler physical and legal custody of the children.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.
Affirmed.