Blauvelt v. Shanahan

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Blauvelt v. Shanahan

Case Number
A-18-0216
Court Number
Buffalo
Call Date
October 10, 2018
Case Time
1:00 PM
Case Summary

District Court of Buffalo County, Judge John H. Marsh

Attorneys for Appellant: Timothy J. Buckley and Travis M. Jacott (Adams & Sullivan, PC, LLO)

Attorneys for Appellee and Cross-Appellant: Bradley D. Holbrook and Elizabeth J. Chrisp (Jacobsen, Orr, Lindstrom & Holbrook, PC, LLO)

Civil Action: Paternity, Child Support, and Child Custody

Action Taken by Trial Court: The district court noted that a provision in the temporary order that allowed the father to have parenting time when he is not working resulted in considerable controversy between the parties. The court concluded that joint custody was unworkable and not in their child’s best interests. The court awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody and awarded the father parenting time every other weekend from 6 p.m. on Friday to 8:30 a.m. on Monday. On Tuesdays following weekends where he has parenting time, the court awarded him parenting time from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. On Tuesdays following weekends where the father does not have parenting time, the court awarded him parenting time from 5 p.m. Tuesday until 8:30 a.m. Wednesday. The court found that the parties’ child should be with her father, as opposed to the mother’s parents, during the mother’s business trips. As a result, the court gave the father the right of first refusal to exercise parenting time whenever the mother travels for work and is absent from her permanent residence for more than 48 hours. The court based the father’s child support obligation on his 2016 income as a salesperson, and not based on the available information about the father’s commissions and bonuses from 2017. In a separate order, the court found that the mother’s difficulties obtaining income information justified the award of a $2,500 attorney fee.

Assignments of Error: The father assigns that the district court erred in (1) awarding sole legal and physical custody to the mother and (2) finding the parenting plan to be in the best interests of their child.

On cross-appeal, the mother assigns, restated, that the district court erred in calculating the father’s child support obligation using his 2016 income rather than his 2017 annualized income. She also argues this court should award her an attorney fee for the same reason the district court awarded her an attorney fee.

Case Location
Lincoln
Court Type
District Court
Schedule Code
A2
Panel Text
Moore, Chief Judge, Bishop and Arterburn, Judges