Possibly. But if a Nebraska custody order already covers your child, the move is not yours alone to decide. Career advancement and being close to extended family can support a legitimate reason to relocate, depending on the evidence. More affordable housing or help from relatives can strengthen a request. Even so, the parent who wants to move must also show that the move is in the child's best interests, and Nebraska courts treat that question as the more important one.
A Nebraska Court of Appeals decision filed November 3, 2026, Rodriguez v. Phelps, shows how this works in practice. A father who shared week-on/week-off custody asked to move his daughter to Texas. His family's business had offered him a management job at $115,000 a year; he was earning about $41,860. He also proposed living next to his parents at no cost and helping care for his ill mother. The Sarpy County District Court denied the request, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The father had not arranged the child's school supports, therapist, or pediatrician in Texas. The trial judge made adverse credibility findings about his request. And the alternating-week schedule could not continue across that distance.
The opinion also gives relocating parents a useful clarification. A parent does not have to prove that a job move is "necessary." Testifying that you would stay in Nebraska if the court says no does not, by itself, make your reason illegitimate. On child support, the court rejected averaging the father's existing wages with the proposed Texas salary, because the evidence did not show he could earn that amount through reasonable efforts.
The practical takeaway: before you accept an offer or sign a lease, read your current order. Then build a specific plan you can prove, covering your child's schooling, care, and relationship with the other parent.
A job offer in another state can feel like the break your family has been waiting for. So can the chance to live near grandparents who could help with school pickups, or near a parent whose health is failing. When you share a child with someone who lives here, though, that decision also reaches the other parent's home, your child's school, and the routine your child knows.
This article is for parents who already have a Nebraska custody order or parenting plan and want to move out of state. It is also for parents trying to understand a move the other parent has proposed. If custody has never been decided by a court, or the move is within Nebraska, different rules may apply; see our post Can I Move With My Child During the Nebraska School Year? If your order came from another state, or someone has already moved, jurisdiction needs its own review.
Start with the order you already have
If a court order sets custody and parenting time, moving your child out of Nebraska generally means asking the court to change that order. Nebraska law provides that modification proceedings involving custody, parenting time, or "removal of children from the jurisdiction of the court shall be commenced by filing a complaint to modify." Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(6).
Modification proceedings also have to meet service requirements. Parenting-plan modifications are referred to mediation or specialized alternative dispute resolution. A court can waive that requirement only if the statutory conditions are met and proven. Waiver is not automatic just because both parents agree or a job deadline is coming. If mediation is ahead, our post How Do You Prepare for Mediation Without Trying to Predict Every Outcome? may help.
Three points regularly trip parents up:
Filing is not permission. A complaint to modify starts the case. Your current order stays in place until a judge signs a new one.
Agreement is not an order, either. The Nebraska Judicial Branch explains that the original parenting plan "will not be changed until" a judge signs an order adopting a new plan and that order is filed.
A deadline is not an exception. A job start date, a closing date, or a lease does not change what your current order requires.
Read your decree and parenting plan for anything about relocation, residence, notice, school decisions, transportation, and how disagreements are resolved. Your plan may contain its own terms.
How Nebraska courts decide whether a child can move out of state
Nebraska uses a two-step framework from Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999). The Nebraska Supreme Court reaffirmed it in Korth v. Korth, 309 Neb. 115, 958 N.W.2d 683 (2021).
A legitimate reason for leaving Nebraska. Career advancement and proximity to extended family can support a legitimate reason to relocate, depending on the evidence and circumstances. Neither one establishes that the child should move.
The child's best interests. The parent must then show that it is in the child's best interests to continue living with that parent after the move.
Both steps must be proven, but the second is "of paramount concern." Rodriguez v. Phelps, 34 Neb. App. 543 (2026). Because the parents in Rodriguez shared joint physical custody, the court also framed the request within the ordinary custody-modification standard. That standard asks whether there has been a material change in circumstances and whether a change serves the child's best interests.
Permission to relocate and a change of custody are related but separate questions. A parent's intention to move even if the child cannot move may affect the custody analysis. But denial of relocation does not automatically transfer custody.
For the best-interests step, the court considers three things:
each parent's motive for seeking or opposing the move;
the move's potential to improve quality of life for the child and the relocating parent;
the move's impact on the child's contact with the other parent.
On quality of life, courts use nonexclusive considerations, including the following nine components. Their weight depends on the evidence; they are not a checklist or a numerical score.
the child's emotional, physical, and developmental needs;
the child's opinion or preference about where to live;
how much the relocating parent's income or employment would improve;
whether housing or living conditions would improve;
educational advantages;
the quality of the child's relationship with each parent;
the strength of the child's ties to the current community and extended family;
whether allowing or denying the move would increase hostility between the parents; and
the relocating parent's living conditions and job opportunities, because a child's well-being is tied to that parent's well-being.
Appellate courts review these cases de novo on the record. They ordinarily affirm the trial court's decision unless the trial court abused its discretion. That discretion is substantial, but a decision based on the wrong legal standard can still be corrected on appeal.
Nebraska's general best-interests factors in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2923(6) also apply to custody and parenting arrangements. Effective July 18, 2026, those factors include credible evidence concerning intellectual and social growth in children who have equal access to both parents. The amendment does not itself require an equal-time schedule or decide a relocation request. Rodriguez did not discuss the new factor.
What happened in Rodriguez v. Phelps
The parents in Rodriguez v. Phelps had a 2018 stipulated paternity decree. It gave them joint legal and physical custody of their daughter on a week-on/week-off schedule, and the father paid $101 a month in child support. In the following years there were contempt applications and several complaints to modify, including an earlier request by the mother to relocate to Utah, which was denied. Along the way, the parenting plan was changed to give the mother the final say on major decisions if the parents disagreed.
In July 2024, the father asked to move the child to Texas. He had worked for his father's company since age 16, and the company offered him a management role at $115,000 a year, with the potential to become a part owner. He proposed living at no cost in a home next to his parents and helping care for his mother, whose health was declining.
The mother opposed the move. She had since married and had a son, her parents lived nearby, and the child spent time with them. The child had an individualized education program (IEP), worked with multiple teachers, and attended therapy. Her therapist testified that disrupting her routine could bring back her anxiety. The father knew the name of the Texas school but had not talked with anyone there about the child's education plan. He also had not identified a therapist or pediatrician.
The district court denied the move. It found that the father had not shown a legitimate reason and, in the alternative, that the move was not in the child's best interests. It also raised his child support to $417 a month. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relocation and vacated the support increase. Because neither parent prevailed on the claim they brought, it also ordered each parent to pay their own attorney fees and costs. That fee result reflects this case's outcome, not a general rule.
Five practical lessons from the case
1. You do not have to prove the job is "necessary," or promise to leave without your child
The trial court questioned how legitimate the request could be if the move was not "necessary/mandatory." It also treated the father's testimony that he would stay in Nebraska if the court said no as a mark against him. The Court of Appeals disagreed on both points: "Nebraska courts have not required that relocation for employment be 'necessary.'" Whether a parent would stay in Nebraska bears on the custody decision, meaning what happens if the move is denied. It does not decide whether the reason to move is legitimate. The court relied on Tremain v. Tremain, 264 Neb. 328, 646 N.W.2d 661 (2002), and McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 264 Neb. 232, 647 N.W.2d 577 (2002).
For parents, that means you can honestly answer the question "would you go without your child?" without automatically undercutting your reason for the move.
2. Credibility can be decisive, but the court must apply the correct legal standards
That clarification did not win the appeal. The Court of Appeals deferred to the trial judge's credibility findings. The trial judge had found the job offer "suspect" and concluded that the request was an attempt to gain sole custody and frustrate the mother's parental rights. Those findings rested on specific points in the record:
the father's limited knowledge of his job duties and caregiving responsibilities;
his "generalized" description of the economic benefits;
the judge's familiarity with the parties after presiding over their earlier filings.
Nebraska law recognizes that an otherwise legitimate reason can be outweighed by an ulterior motive to frustrate the other parent's relationship with the child. Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 258 Neb. 1035, 607 N.W.2d 517 (2000).
Pursuing enforcement or modification when you need it is not inherently suspect. The lesson is narrower: know your offer thoroughly and be able to prove it. That means the title, duties, schedule, pay, location, start date, and what any caregiving role would actually involve.
3. A bigger paycheck and a nicer house are not the same as a better life for your child
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the father's quality of life would improve and that the child would benefit along with him. But he presented no evidence about educational resources in Texas and had not identified mental-health or medical providers. The court said those services were "important for her well-being." The Texas home was worth more, but the court said that "does not automatically equate to a better living situation." The child had her own bedroom in Omaha and would have one in Texas.
An IEP or therapy history does not by itself decide a relocation request. In this case, gaps in the proposed services mattered alongside the child's existing relationships, routine, and other circumstances. For each support your child relies on now, be ready to show who would provide it after the move, how services would transfer, and when care would begin.
4. A long-distance move may make the existing parenting schedule unworkable
Week-on/week-off parenting time would not be possible from Texas. The court noted that extra holiday and summer time "would not negate the impact" on the mother's relationship with the child, because she could no longer be as involved in the child's daily life.
Reduced parenting time does not automatically defeat relocation. The court considers whether a workable arrangement can preserve a meaningful parent-child relationship. A realistic long-distance proposal covers the following:
what the other parent would lose, not just what you can offer back;
travel time and costs, and who handles transportation;
school breaks;
communication;
the other parent's access to school and medical information.
5. Build the trial record; later developments may not justify a new trial
About a month after trial, the child's therapist changed jobs and offered either a transfer to another provider or a discharge, and the parents chose discharge. The father asked for a new trial, arguing that the court had relied on the child's therapy needs. The district court denied the request, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Evidence of facts occurring after trial ordinarily cannot support a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The therapy issue was also one factor among many.
A posttrial development is not necessarily newly discovered evidence. Anyone considering posttrial relief should get prompt advice about the available procedures and deadlines.
Child support: a proposed salary needs evidence, not speculation
The trial court's $417 figure came from a worksheet that attributed to the father roughly the average of his current pay and the Texas salary. The Court of Appeals rejected that calculation. Nebraska's child support guidelines allow courts to consider earning capacity in place of actual income. Neb. Ct. R. § 4-204(E). Generally, though, earning capacity is used only when there is evidence the parent can realize it through reasonable efforts. The record did not support the attributed amount, and the father testified that the Texas job was a unique opportunity.
The court agreed that in-kind benefits can count as income for child support, such as a house or vehicles bought by a relative, or fuel paid for by an employer. But the house predated the 2018 support order, and nothing showed when the other benefits began. No evidence put a value on any of them. Without proof of a material change since the last order, the increase was vacated and the original $101 obligation was reinstated.
If either parent wants support changed in a relocation case, that request needs its own proof, including when each change happened and what it is worth.
If you are the parent opposing the move
Strong opposition stays focused on the child. Explain your actual, day-to-day role: school, appointments, activities, and routines. Point out the specific gaps in the proposed plan. The court weighs both parents' motives, and the key question is whether either parent's aim "is to frustrate or manipulate the other parent." Korth, 309 Neb. 115.
Describe the benefits and drawbacks of the move accurately. Focus on concrete evidence of your child's needs, your involvement, and the proposed arrangements. And keep following the current order while the case is pending.
Safety comes first
Communication and planning should follow existing orders and account for safety concerns. If abuse, threats, stalking, or a protected address is involved, get individualized advice before contacting the other parent or sharing location information.
What to gather before you file or respond
These materials can help a lawyer evaluate a relocation proposal:
your current decree, parenting plan, every modification order, and any temporary orders;
the written job offer: title, duties, hours, pay, benefits, work location, start date, and whether the start date is flexible;
housing documents showing who owns or pays for the home and on what terms;
school information for the new location, including contact with the district about how an IEP or other supports would transfer;
named providers in the new area (pediatrician, therapist, specialists) who are accepting new patients and take your insurance;
specific commitments from family members who would help: who, what, and when;
a proposed long-distance parenting calendar with transportation, cost-sharing, and communication terms;
current school, medical, and activity records showing your child's needs and each parent's involvement.
None of these is a universal requirement or a guarantee of approval. Gathering them should not delay getting advice about a pending response deadline, a court order, or an urgent safety issue.
Questions to ask a Nebraska lawyer
Does my order require anything specific before I move or ask to move?
Which court has jurisdiction, and how will mediation or specialized ADR work in my case?
What happens if my job start date arrives before a hearing?
How might our case history and the evidence affect how the judge views my request or my opposition?
Could child support change, and what proof would either side need?
Support beyond the courtroom
Relocation disputes are hard on everyone in a family. As part of the services we offer our clients, Zachary W. Anderson Law provides in-house co-parenting and divorce coaching at no additional fee. Coaching offers practical support alongside legal representation; it is not therapy or a substitute for legal advice. In a relocation case, it can help with things like these, always within existing orders and with safety in mind:
thinking through how to raise a possible move with the other parent;
talking with your child without putting them in the middle;
managing communication while the case is pending.
Frequently asked questions
If the other parent agrees to the move, do we still need to go to court?
Usually, yes, if the move changes what your current order says. A written agreement can make the process faster and less expensive, but it does not amend the order by itself. The parenting plan does not change until a judge signs a new order and it is filed, and the court still considers the child's best interests. An entered order establishes enforceable terms, which can later be modified under the applicable legal standards.
I have sole physical custody. Can I just move?
Do not assume so. In Korth v. Korth, a mother with sole physical custody sought permission to move and made clear she intended to move even if removal was denied. The trial court denied removal and modified custody to the father, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. Have your decree and parenting plan reviewed before you move or commit to a new job.
How much notice do I have to give before moving?
Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2929(2), parenting plans must require notice of address changes. For a parent living or moving to an undisclosed location because of safety concerns, the statute limits the address information to the county and state. That subsection does not set a universal 30- or 60-day relocation deadline, and giving notice is not the same as getting permission. Check your own plan, and review any protective orders or confidentiality provisions before disclosing location information.
Can my child decide whether we move?
A child does not decide the outcome. Under § 43-2923(6)(b), the court considers a child's wishes if the child is of an age of comprehension, regardless of chronological age, and the wishes are based on sound reasoning. How a child's views reach the court matters, and placing the decision on the child is rarely good for them. Our post At What Age Can a Child Choose Which Parent to Live With or Where to Go to School in Nebraska? discusses this further.
Does Nebraska's 2026 change to the best-interests factors affect relocation?
Effective July 18, 2026, the best-interests factors in § 43-2923(6) include credible evidence concerning intellectual and social growth in children with equal access to both parents. The amendment does not itself require an equal-time schedule or decide a relocation request. Rodriguez did not discuss the new factor, so ask your lawyer how it may apply to your facts.
We were never married. Does this framework apply?
It depends on whether a court has already decided custody. In a paternity case involving an initial judicial custody determination, the court decides custody based on parental fitness and the child's best interests, rather than imposing the Farnsworth removal burden. Franklin M. v. Lauren C., 310 Neb. 927, 969 N.W.2d 882 (2022). A prior order establishing paternity or support does not necessarily mean custody has already been decided. Modifying an existing permanent custody order presents a different question.
My new job starts before the court can hear my case. What should I do?
Talk with a lawyer promptly about requesting a timely full hearing and any appropriate interim orders. Nebraska appellate decisions discourage granting temporary permission to relocate a child before the court decides permanent removal. Jack v. Clinton, 259 Neb. 198, 609 N.W.2d 328 (2000). A job deadline does not guarantee an expedited ruling or permission to move.
If the court approves a move to one state, can I later move somewhere else?
Permission for one interstate relocation is not blanket permission for a later move to another state. Further approval must be sought from the court with jurisdiction. State on behalf of Ryley G. v. Ryan G., 306 Neb. 63, 943 N.W.2d 709 (2020).
Talk with a Nebraska custody lawyer before you commit
Whether you are weighing an offer or responding to a proposed move, the best time to get advice is before anyone signs, packs, or moves. Zachary W. Anderson Law helps Nebraska parents with custody, parenting plans, and relocation disputes. To talk through your situation, request a consultation. Bring your current decree, parenting plan, any later orders, and any written job offer or relocation proposal.
This article provides general information about Nebraska law, not advice for a particular situation. Outcomes depend on the evidence, applicable law, existing orders, and the court's assessment of the child's best interests. Do not treat this article as permission to move a child or to disregard an order. Reading this article or sending an inquiry does not by itself establish an attorney-client relationship. Get prompt advice about any pending case or deadline. Law reviewed November 4, 2026. Rodriguez v. Phelps was issued November 3, 2026; check its current status before relying on it.