Start with Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-2921 to 43-2923. In Nebraska, Nebraska uses Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody.. Courts apply best-interests factors under § 43-2923, including the relationship between each parent and child, parental capacity, and any history of abuse. Joint legal custody is common; physical custody / parenting time follows best interests under a parenting plan. That is the question this guide answers for child custody and parenting time. Relocation: A parent seeking to relocate with the child generally must show a legitimate reason and that the move is in the child’s best interests (Farnsworth-line analysis). Modification: A material change of circumstances is required to modify custody.
Best-interests factors in Nebraska
Courts apply best-interests factors under § 43-2923, including the relationship between each parent and child, parental capacity, and any history of abuse.
Legal custody, physical custody, and parenting time
Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody.
Joint legal custody is common; physical custody / parenting time follows best interests under a parenting plan.
How the Nebraska rule applies
Apply the Nebraska authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.
Two parents in Nebraska disagree about where the child lives during the school week, and one wants to move.
- Use the labels Nebraska actually uses: Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody..
- Apply the best-interests factors: Courts apply best-interests factors under § 43-2923, including the relationship between each parent and child, parental capacity, and any history of abuse.
- Check any parenting presumption: Joint legal custody is common; physical custody / parenting time follows best interests under a parenting plan.
- If a move is proposed: A parent seeking to relocate with the child generally must show a legitimate reason and that the move is in the child’s best interests (Farnsworth-line analysis). Later changes follow: A material change of circumstances is required to modify custody.
Custody is addressed in dissolution or a custody action. Parenting plans are mandatory. Final decrees allocate legal and physical custody and parenting time.
Relocation with a child
A parent seeking to relocate with the child generally must show a legitimate reason and that the move is in the child’s best interests (Farnsworth-line analysis).
Modifying a Nebraska custody order
A material change of circumstances is required to modify custody.
How custody cases typically move in Nebraska
Custody is addressed in dissolution or a custody action. Parenting plans are mandatory. Final decrees allocate legal and physical custody and parenting time.
Related Nebraska guides
Case law: custody and parenting time in Nebraska
Kamal v. Imroz
Kamal v. Imroz, 277 Neb. 116 (2009)
…to Mehruz Kamal. The court granted sole legal and physical custody of the couple's minor son to Kamal, with liberal rights of visitation to Imroz. The district court also divided the couple's assets and debt, ordered Imroz to pay child support, and prohibited either party from taking their son out of the United States without written consent of the other. Imroz appeals. We aff…
On child custody, Kamal v. Imroz speaks to the Nebraska dispute in this passage: "Mehruz Kamal. The court granted sole legal and physical custody of the couple's minor son to Kamal, with liberal rights of visitation to Imroz." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
David Ensrud, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Alicia Ann Ensrud, Appellant and Cross-Appellee
…arriage with Alicia Ann Ensrud, 20 years of age, and obtain custody of their child, Sara Marie, who was nearly 16 months old. David also requested that Alicia pay child support and that the court divide and distribute marital property. In her cross-petition, Alicia reciprocated, seeking custody of Sara Marie, child support, and a property division. Although David and Alicia had…
On child custody, David Ensrud, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Alicia Ann Ensrud, Appellant and Cross-Appellee speaks to the Nebraska dispute in this passage: "Alicia Ann Ensrud, 20 years of age, and obtain custody of their child, Sara Marie, who was nearly 16 months old. David also requested that Alicia pay child support and that the court divide and distribute marital property." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Galen C. Stuhr, Appellee, v. Catherine L. Stuhr, Now Known as Catherine L. Myers, Appellant
…nied Catherine Myers' application to change Ashton Martin's custody, previously granted to Galen C. Stuhr under a decree dissolving the Stuhr marriage. Galen Stuhr is neither the biological nor the adoptive father of Ashton Martin, who was born in 1985, but was the child's stepfather as a result of Catherine and Galen Stuhr's marriage in 1986. In 1988, when the Stuhr marriage w…
Practitioners open Galen C. Stuhr, Appellee, v. Catherine L. Stuhr, Now Known as Catherine L. Myers, Appellant when Nebraska child custody turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Catherine Myers' application to change Ashton Martin's custody, previously granted to Galen C. Stuhr under a decree dissolving the Stuhr marriage." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Aurora Ramirez Maska, Appellant, v. Joel Dean Maska, Appellee
Aurora Ramirez Maska, Appellant, v. Joel Dean Maska, Appellee, 274 Neb. 629 (2007)
…Dean Maska and Aurora Ramirez *630 Maska. The court awarded custody of the couple’s two minor children to Joel. The order provided that Joel would have custody of the children during the school year and that Aurora would have custody during the summer. The parties were previously involved in a legal separation, and at the time of the separation, their property was divided and t…
Aurora Ramirez Maska, Appellant, v. Joel Dean Maska, Appellee is worth reading on Nebraska child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "Dean Maska and Aurora Ramirez *630 Maska. The court awarded custody of the couple’s two minor children to Joel. The order provided that Joel would have custody of the children during the school year and that Aurora would have custody during the summer." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Jolene L. Nielsen, Appellant, v. Michial D. Nielsen, Appellee — Krivosha, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part
…holds that a court may not properly deprive a parent of the custody of a minor child “unless it is affirmatively shown that such parent is unfit to perform the duties imposed by the relationship, or has forfeited that right,” ante p. 149, _ N.W.2d _(emphasis added), and from that portion of the opinion which recites that “the right of a parent to the custody of his minor child…
On child custody, Jolene L. Nielsen, Appellant, v. Michial D. Nielsen, Appellee — Krivosha, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part speaks to the Nebraska dispute in this passage: "holds that a court may not properly deprive a parent of the custody of a minor child “unless it is affirmatively shown that such parent is unfit to perform the duties imposed by the relationship, or has forfeited that right,” ante p. 149, _ N.W.2d _(emphasis added), and from that" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State Ex Rel. Amanda M. v. JUSTIN T.
State Ex Rel. Amanda M. v. JUSTIN T., 279 Neb. 273 (2010)
…a M., and the appellee, Justin T., joint legal and physical custody of their minor child, Cloe T. Neither parent sought imposition of joint custody. At issue in this case is whether the trial court, in a paternity case, can properly award joint legal and physical custody of a minor child where neither parent has requested joint custody, without first holding an evidentiary hear…
State Ex Rel. Amanda M. v. JUSTIN T. is worth reading on Nebraska child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "M., and the appellee, Justin T., joint legal and physical custody of their minor child, Cloe T. Neither parent sought imposition of joint custody." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Key takeaways
- Best-interests standard: Courts apply best-interests factors under § 43-2923, including the relationship between each parent and child, parental capacity, and any history of abuse.
- Labels used in Nebraska: Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody..
- Parenting-time posture: Joint legal custody is common; physical custody / parenting time follows best interests under a parenting plan.
- Relocation: A parent seeking to relocate with the child generally must show a legitimate reason and that the move is in the child’s best interests (Farnsworth-line analysis).
- Modification: A material change of circumstances is required to modify custody.
- Primary authority: Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-2921 to 43-2923.
Frequently asked questions
What does Nebraska call “custody”?
Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody.
Can I move out of state with my child?
A parent seeking to relocate with the child generally must show a legitimate reason and that the move is in the child’s best interests (Farnsworth-line analysis).
How do I change an existing custody order in Nebraska?
A material change of circumstances is required to modify custody.
This guide covers Nebraska custody law as of 2026. Verify the live statute and any local parenting-time guidelines before relying on this summary.