Please visit my author page at amazon.com
Mark S. Krejci v. Christina Krejci. Neb. Grandparent Visitation
After the children's biological father died in 2014, the paternal grandfather, who lived in Florida, obtained a decree for grandparent visitation under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-1802. Visits went well until May 2018. The grandfather flew to Omaha, but the children informed their mother that they did not want to visit because it was their deceased father's birthday.
The grandfather filed a civil contempt proceeding, and the mother filed for modification of the visitation. The district court denied the modification, since it lacked jurisdiction to allow the visitation to take place or not take place "upon the wishes of the minor children." The court heard one child's testimony in chambers, and ultimately ruled that the mother had not willfully violated the decree. Therefore, it dismissed the contempt complaint. It did modify the order to reduce the visitation, and also not include the father's birthday or anniversary of his death. The grandfather then appealed, and the case was heard by the Nebraska Supreme Court. He argued that the trial court erred in denying contempt and modifying the visitation schedule.
On the contempt motion, the court acknowledged that parents sometimes use a child's hesitation as a subterfuge to interfere with visitation. But in this case, there was no pattern, and the children testified that the mother had not encouraged them not to visit. While the high court cautioned that children don't get to decide visitation matters, in this case, the trial court's findings of no contempt were warranted.
The high court did agree with the grandfather that the modification order should be reversed. It held that the grandfather did not have proper notice of the modification hearing.
304 Neb. 302 (Oct. 18, 2019).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case summaries
Copyright 2019, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com