What does Klahn v. Klahn tell us about modifying parenting time and child support in Nebraska?

In December 2025, the Nebraska Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion in Klahn v. Klahn that offers a clear, practical look at how Nebraska courts approach parenting plan and child support modifications when everyday co-parenting conflict builds over time. The court drew a firm procedural line by vacating a district court’s attempt to define “summer” parenting time on its own initiative, where neither parent requested that change and the issue was not tried. At the same time, the Court of Appeals affirmed two other significant rulings: reducing daily telephone contact to a structured minimum schedule and increasing child support using Worksheet 1 rather than a joint-custody worksheet. Together, these rulings show how Nebraska courts balance procedural limits, parental conflict, and the child support guidelines when deciding what modifications are allowed and which ones go too far.

This opinion is designated as a memorandum opinion and is not binding precedent. Even so, it provides a valuable snapshot of how Nebraska courts are currently analyzing common modification disputes involving phone contact, vague parenting plan language, and child support deviations.

The background: why the parents returned to court

The parties divorced in 2019 and later entered into an agreed modification in 2021. That modification provided for joint legal and physical custody, with the child primarily residing with the mother during the school year and with the father during the summer. It also required daily telephone or FaceTime contact for the parent not exercising parenting time and set child support at $200 per month based on a joint-custody worksheet with a downward deviation tied to the father’s diabetes-related insulin costs.

In January 2024, the mother filed a complaint seeking to modify child support and telephone contact. She alleged changes in employment and income sufficient to trigger a guideline-level modification under Nebraska law and asked the court to reduce daily phone calls to a few times per week, asserting that nightly calls were no longer in the child’s best interests.

By December 2024, the parties reached a mediated parenting plan resolving all parenting issues except telephone contact and child support. At the start of trial, counsel for both parties confirmed on the record that these were the only issues before the court. That confirmation became central to the appellate court’s analysis.

Can a Nebraska judge redefine “summer” parenting time without being asked?

No.

Although the mediated parenting plan stated that the child would reside with one parent during “the summer,” it did not define when summer began or ended. Believing the plan needed clarification to be workable, the district court defined summer as running from the last weekend in May through the first weekend in August.

The Court of Appeals vacated that portion of the order. The definition of “summer” was not raised in the pleadings, not addressed in testimony, and not argued by either party. Because the issue was never placed before the court, the district court abused its discretion by redefining it sua sponte.

The lesson from Klahn is procedural but important: even when a parenting plan contains vague language, a court generally may not rewrite agreed terms unless the issue is properly raised, litigated, and supported by evidence.

When does conflict over phone calls justify modification?

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s reduction of telephone and FaceTime contact.

Under Nebraska law, modifying parenting time requires proof of a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s best interests, followed by a determination that the requested change serves those interests. Although the district court did not expressly label its findings as a “material change,” the Court of Appeals held that such a finding was implicit in the order and supported by the evidence.

Text messages and testimony showed that daily phone calls caused ongoing conflict between the parents. Disputes arose when the child was asleep, when one parent wanted more than one call in a day, or when a parent already had exercised parenting time that day. The record also showed that there were times when the child did not feel like talking on the phone.

Based on this evidence, the district court authorized telephone or FaceTime contact on Mondays and Thursdays between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. for not less than 15 minutes. The order applied equally to both parents and emphasized that the schedule was a minimum requirement. The court encouraged flexibility and child-initiated contact, particularly because the child had access to his own electronic device.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the reduction in daily calls was supported by a material change in circumstances and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Why did the court increase child support and use Worksheet 1?

The district court increased child support to $478 per month using Worksheet 1 – Basic Income and Support Calculation, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.

The mother’s complaint alleged changes in employment and income sufficient to create at least a ten-percent variation in support lasting more than three months and expected to continue for six months. Under Neb. Ct. R. § 4-217, such a showing can independently establish a material change in circumstances warranting modification.

Although the parenting plan continued to reference joint legal and physical custody, the court focused on actual parenting time. The district court estimated that the father exercised approximately 123 parenting days per year. When parenting time falls between 109 and 142 days annually, Nebraska’s child support guidelines give the court discretion to use either Worksheet 1 or Worksheet 3. Because the child spent the majority of each month with the mother outside of June and July, the court elected to use Worksheet 1.

The Court of Appeals emphasized that prior agreements and custody labels do not control once a guideline-level material change is shown. Worksheet selection remains within the court’s discretion.

Why was the diabetes-related deviation denied?

The father requested continuation of a downward deviation based on his diabetes-related medical costs. The district court denied the request, finding that he presented only minimal evidence regarding the costs of his care and no evidence that his condition involved extraordinary symptoms, treatment, or expenses beyond those faced by others managing diabetes.

Under Neb. Ct. R. § 4-203, deviations are permitted for extraordinary medical costs only when consistent with the child’s best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the deviation, noting that once a material change in circumstances justified modification under § 4-217, the application of the guidelines and any deviations fell within the court’s discretion and had to align with the child’s best interests.

What Klahn v. Klahn teaches about Nebraska modification cases

Klahn reinforces three recurring principles in Nebraska family law. Courts are limited to the issues properly raised and tried. Persistent parental conflict that affects a child can justify changes to parenting time, even when those changes reduce previously ordered daily contact. And child support calculations are driven by current evidence and the guidelines, not by labels or past compromises.

FAQ: Nebraska parenting time and child support after Klahn v. Klahn

Can a Nebraska judge change part of a parenting plan that neither parent asked to modify?
Generally, no. In Klahn, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s definition of “summer” parenting time because the issue was not raised or litigated.

Can a court reduce nightly phone calls with my child?
Yes. If daily calls cause ongoing conflict and affect the child’s best interests, a court may modify telephone contact to a more structured schedule, as it did in Klahn.

Does joint custody automatically require a joint-custody child support worksheet?
No. Nebraska courts look at actual parenting time. When a parent has between 109 and 142 days per year, the court has discretion to use Worksheet 1 or Worksheet 3.

Will a chronic medical condition automatically reduce child support?
No. A medical condition alone is not enough. Courts require evidence of extraordinary medical costs and must find that a deviation serves the child’s best interests.

If the court sets a minimum call schedule, can parents still allow more contact?
Yes. In Klahn, the court expressly encouraged flexibility and additional child-initiated contact beyond the minimum schedule.