Why should anyone outside of Nebraska be concerned with the holding in a recent memorandum opinion entered by the Nebraska Court of Appeals in Easton v. Easton? While the Easton case is a memorandum opinion and judgment, and is not designated for permanent publication, the holding illustrates the importance of analyzing behavior rather than simply relying on labels. The appellate court does not don its “parental alienation” glasses, nor does it ferret out psychological labels so often connected with high-conflict custody cases. For that reason, this memorandum opinion merits review by those engaged in the practice of family law, child custody evaluators, and judges tasked with rendering decisions in high-conflict cases.

The underlying case revolves around a formerly married couple. Two children were born to or adopted through their marriage. The parents divorced in July 2017, and per their decree were granted joint legal and physical custody of the children. However, the mother was granted “final decisionmaking authority for health and medical decisions involving the children.” Approximately 18 months later, the parties stipulated to a change as to the parties’ regular parenting time and summer and holiday schedules, which was codified in a court order. The memorandum opinion focuses on a subsequent modification.