Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364

Section 42-364(3) permits a court to award joint physical custody without also awarding joint legal custody.

McIver v. McIver · filed 2013-10-01(3)

The statute contemplates that a court may order joint legal custody, joint physical custody, or both; but it does not require a court to order both joint legal and joint physical custody, or preclude ordering joint physical custody without joint legal custody.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint physical custody when both parents agree and it serves the children’s best interests, or without their agreement if the court makes a specific best-interests finding after a hearing in open court.

Schenck v. Schenck · filed 2016-03-08(3)

The court may grant the parties joint legal custody or joint physical custody, or both, if either (a) both parents agree to such an arrangement in the parenting plan and the court determines that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the children or (b) the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor children regardless of any parental agreement or consent. § 42-364(3). ... Based on both parties’ demonstrated interest and involvement in their children’s lives, the evidence of the minor children’s ability to adapt to a joint physical custody arrangement, and the parties’ ability to communicate and cooperate on child-related issues, even if their cooperation was interspersed with occasional divorce-related conflict, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding joint physical custody.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint legal custody despite parental disagreements when the evidence supports shared parental responsibility in the child’s best interests.

Burkholder v. Burkholder · filed 2016-05-31(3)

In the present case, the evidence likewise supports not favoring one parent over the other in allocating parental responsibilities.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint physical custody despite parents’ communication difficulties when the arrangement serves the child’s best interests.

Heavican v. Benes · filed 2016-08-02(3)

While State on behalf of Maddox S., supra, set forth cases allowing joint legal custody despite communication difficulties, we note that such difficulties likewise do not preclude an award of joint physical custody.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint legal or physical custody when both parents agree, or, without their agreement, after a hearing and a finding that joint custody serves the children’s best interests.

Lewis v. Lewis · filed 2017-04-25(3)

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(3) (Reissue 2016), the court may place custody of minor children with both parents on a joint legal or physical custody basis, or both, when both parents agree to such or if the court specifically finds that joint custody is in the best interests of the minor children regardless of parental agreement or consent. When making custody determinations under § 42-364(3), if both parties do not agree, the court can award joint custody only if it holds a hearing and makes the required finding that joint custody is in the best interests of the children.

Section 42-364 permits joint legal custody when the parents agree or, without their agreement, after a hearing and a specific finding that joint custody serves the children’s best interests.

Schurman v. Wilkins · filed 2018-01-23

With respect to legal custody, under § 42-364, the court may award joint legal custody of minor children when both parents agree to such or if the court specifically finds that joint custody is in the best interests of the minor children regardless of parental agreement or consent. When making custody determinations under § 42-364, if both parties do not agree, the court can award joint custody only if it holds a hearing and makes the required finding that joint custody is in the best interests of the children.

Section 42-364(3) requires a court to find joint legal or physical custody in a child’s best interests even when the parents agree to it.

Kashyap v. Kashyap · filed 2018-11-06(3)

A court must determine that joint custody (legal or physical) is in a minor child’s best interests regardless of any parental agreement or consent. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(3) (Reissue 2016).

Section 42-364(3) does not require joint physical custody merely because both parents are fit; absent parental agreement, the court may decline it when joint custody is not in the children’s best interests.

Peterson v. Peterson · filed 2018-11-13(3)

However, the parties did not agree to joint physical custody, and the court was not required to award it.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint legal custody in a paternity action when it serves the child’s best interests, despite difficulties in the parents’ communication.

Breinig-Pruitt v. Westfahl · filed 2019-02-12(3)

Section 42-364 applies to custody disputes in paternity actions. ... Based upon our review of the record, including but not limited to the clear evidence that both parents love and care deeply for Kobyn, and giving weight to the fact that the trial court heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the parents joint legal custody.

Section 42-364(3) allows joint physical custody when the court finds the parenting plan serves the children’s best interests, even if the decree awards one parent “primary possession.”

Dooling v. Dooling · filed 2019-07-05(3)

The record also indicates that the court made the necessary statutory findings for an award of joint physical custody under § 42-364(3). The court awarded “primary possession” of the children to Kristina, subject to the parenting time as set forth in the parenting plan incorporated into the decree, which the court found was in the best interests of the minor children.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint physical custody when both parents agree or the court specifically finds that it is in the children’s best interests.

Dooling v. Dooling · filed 2019-07-05(3)

The minor children may be placed with both parents on a joint physical custody basis where (1) both parents agree or (2) the court specifically finds that joint physical custody is in the best interests of the minor children.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint legal or physical custody when it serves the child’s best interests, but a court may award sole custody when the parents cannot communicate or work together.

Riegel v. Lemond · filed 2019-07-09(3)

The court may grant the parties joint legal custody or joint physical custody, or both, if either (a) both parents agree to such an arrangement in the parenting plan and the court determines that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the children or (b) the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor children regardless of any parental agreement or consent. § 42-364(3). ... Given our reading of the record, and given our deference to the trial court’s decisions about witness’ credibility, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Jackie sole legal and physical custody of Ivie, rather than awarding Stephen sole custody or awarding the parties joint custody.

Section 42-364(3) requires an open-court hearing and an express finding that joint custody serves the child’s best interests before a court orders joint custody in a dissolution action when the parents have not agreed to it.

State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T. · filed 2019-08-30(3)

We note that, in dissolution actions where the parents have not agreed to joint custody, § 42-364(3) requires that before joint custody may be ordered, there must be a hearing in open court and an express finding that joint custody is in the child’s best interests.62 But we do not understand the provisions of § 42-364(3) to indicate the Legislature either favors or disfa- vors joint custody.

Section 42-364(3)(b) requires a best interests finding before joint custody is ordered; an oral finding at a posttrial hearing can establish that the court found both joint legal and joint physical custody to be in the child’s best interests.

Stamp v. Stamp · filed 2019-09-10(3)(b)

A court may order joint custody “if the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor child regardless of any parental agreement or consent.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(3)(b) (Reissue 2016). ... It is clear that the court concluded joint legal and physical custody of the child was in Emory’s best interests.

Section 42-364(3) allows joint legal or physical custody when the parents agree and the court finds it serves the child’s best interests, or when the court makes a best-interests finding after an open-court hearing despite a lack of parental agreement.

State on behalf of Tyler H., Jr. v. Tyler H. · filed 2021-01-12(3)

Custody of a minor child may be placed with both parents on a joint legal custody or joint physical custody basis, or both, (a) when both parents agree to such an arrangement in the parenting plan and the court determines that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child or (b) if the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor child regardless of any parental agreement or consent. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(3) (Reissue 2016). ... Based upon our review of this evidence, we simply cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in awarding the parties with joint physical custody of TJ.

When parents have not agreed to joint custody, § 42-364(3) requires an open-court hearing and an express finding that joint custody serves the child’s best interests before it may be ordered.

Eicke v. Eicke · filed 2021-03-30(3)

Where the parents have not agreed to joint custody, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(3) (Reissue 2016) requires that before joint custody may be ordered, there must be a hearing in open court and an express finding that joint custody is in the child’s best interests.

Section 42-364(3) does not require joint custody or equal parenting time when that arrangement is not in the children’s best interests.

Velazquez v. Velazquez · filed 2021-08-24(3)

However, Nebraska statutes do not require the district court to grant equal parenting time or joint custody to the parents if such is not in their children’s best interests. See Kamal v. Imroz, 277 Neb. 116, 759 N.W.2d 914 (2009). ... We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s award of sole physical custody of the parties’ children to Kristen.

Section 42-364(3) requires a specific finding that joint physical custody is in the child’s best interests; an implicit finding does not satisfy that requirement.

Alberts v. Alberts · filed 2019-02-19(3)

A district court abuses its discretion to order joint custody when it fails to specifically find that joint physical custody is in the child’s best interests as required by § 42-364.

Section 42-364(3) does not require joint physical custody or equal parenting time when that arrangement is not in the children’s best interests.

State on behalf of Samantha P. v. Zachary R. · filed 2022-11-22(3)

However, Nebraska statutes do not require the district court to grant equal parenting time or joint custody to the parents if such is not in their children’s best interests.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint legal or physical custody after a hearing and a specific finding that joint custody serves the child’s best interests; an award of sole custody is permissible when the record supports it.

Keogh v. Cook · filed 2025-05-27(3)

Custody of a minor child may be placed with both parents on a joint legal custody or joint physical custody basis, or both, if the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court that joint physical or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor child regardless of any parental agreement or consent. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(3) (Cum. Supp. 2024). ... We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s award of sole legal custody to Lisa.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint legal or physical custody when the arrangement is in the child’s best interests, but does not require equal parenting time.

Leonard v. Leonard · filed 2014-10-28(3)

Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude the district court abused its discretion when it awarded Kristina sole legal and physical custody of the children. See, Kamal v. Imroz, 277 Neb. 116, 759 N.W.2d 914 (2009) (§§ 42-364(3) and 43-2923 require district court to devise parenting plan and to consider joint legal and physical custody; statutes do not require district court to grant equal parenting time to children if such is not in children’s best interests); Klimek v. Klimek, 18 Neb. App. 82, 775 N.W.2d 444 (2009) (communication is essential requirement for joint custody to be successful).

Section 42-364(3) permits joint physical custody when both parents agree and the court finds it is in the child's best interests, or when the court makes that finding after an open-court hearing regardless of parental consent.

Ramirez v. Magana · filed 2025-03-18(3)

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(3) (Cum. Supp. 2024) provides: Custody of a minor child may be placed with both parents on a . . . joint physical custody basis . . . (a) when both parents agree to such an arrangement in the parenting plan and the court determines that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child or (b) if the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody . . . is in the best interests of the minor child regardless of any parental agreement or consent.

Section 42-364(5) requires a specific finding that joint custody is in the child’s best interests when the parents do not agree to joint custody.

Dormann v. Dormann · filed 2000-02-22(5)

In the instant case, the parties did not agree to the joint custody arrangement, nor did the district court make a specific finding that joint custody was in the best interests of William as required by § 42-364(5).

When parents do not agree to joint custody, § 42-364(5) permits it only after a hearing and a specific finding that joint custody is in the child’s best interests.

Robb v. Robb · filed 2004-10-08(5)

Because the parties in this case did not agree to joint custody, the last sentence of the statute governs the issue. Thus, the question before us on de novo review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in not making a specific finding that joint custody is in the best interests of the children, applying the criteria set forth above.

Section 42-364(5) requires an opportunity to present evidence before a court orders joint physical custody that neither parent requested, and the court must specifically find that joint physical custody is in the child’s best interests.

Zahl v. Zahl · filed 2007-07-20(5)

Therefore, we hold that when a trial court determines at a general custody hearing that joint physical custody is, or may be, in a child’s best interests, but neither party has requested this custody arrangement, the court must give the parties an opportunity to present evidence on the issue before imposing joint custody. In addition, the district court abused its discretion to order joint custody by failing to specifically find that joint physical custody was in Jace’s best interests as required in the last sentence of § 42-364(5).

Section 42-364(3) permits joint custody without both parents’ agreement only after a hearing and a finding that joint custody serves the children’s best interests.

Klimek v. Klimek · filed 2009-10-27(3)

When making custody determinations under § 42-364(3), if both parties do not agree, the court can award joint custody only if it holds a hearing and makes the required finding that joint custody is in the best interests of the children.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint custody without the parties’ agreement in a dissolution case if the court specifically finds that joint custody is in the child’s best interests.

Czapla v. Dennis · filed 2013-05-21(3)

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(3) (Cum. Supp. 2012) provides that in dissolution cases, if the parties do not agree to joint custody in a parenting plan, the trial court can award joint custody if it specifically finds that it is in the best interests of the child or children.

Section 42-364(3) allows joint custody without parental agreement if the court specifically finds after an open-court hearing that it serves the child’s best interests.

Brown v. Brown · filed 2013-11-19(3)

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(2) (Cum. Supp. 2012) provides that “[c]ustody shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child, as defined in the Parenting Act” and in subsection (3), which provides: Custody of a minor child may be placed with both parents on a joint legal custody or joint physical custody basis, or both, (a) when both parents agree to such an arrangement in the parenting plan and the court determines that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child or (b) if the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor child regardless of any parental agreement or consent. ... No agreement was reached by the parties with respect to either joint physical custody or joint legal custody. ... Our de novo review leads us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding DeLana both physical and legal custody of the children.

Section 42-364 permits joint custody without an agreed parenting plan only when the court specifically finds it serves the children’s best interests.

Cushman v. Cushman · filed 2014-07-29(3)

Section 42-364 of the dissolution of marriage statutes requires that in dissolution cases, if the parties do not agree to joint custody in a parenting plan, the trial court can award joint custody if it specifically finds that it is in the best interests of the child or children.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint physical custody without both parents’ agreement when the court finds after an open hearing that it serves the child’s best interests.

Bejmuk v. Bejmuk · filed 2015-06-23(3)

The district court is also guided by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(3) (Cum. Supp. 2012) when determining a child custody award. This section provides: Custody of a minor child may be placed with both parents on a joint legal custody or joint physical custody basis, or both, (a) when both parents agree to such an arrangement in the parenting plan and the court determines that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child or (b) if the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor child regardless of any parental agreement or consent. ... In light of Peter’s testimony, we conclude that the district court did not err in awarding the parties’ joint physical custody of the minor children.

Section 42-364(5) permits a court to order joint custody without both parents’ consent if it holds a hearing and specifically finds joint custody is in the child’s best interests.

Kay v. Ludwig · filed 2004-09-21(5)

We agree that currently, § 42-364(5) clearly gives the trial court the authority to order joint custody even where one of the parents refuses to consent, if the court holds a hearing and specifically finds that joint custody is in the child’s best interests.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint legal or physical custody without parental agreement when it is in the child’s best interests.

State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E. · filed 2016-01-12(3)

However, a trial court’s decision to award joint legal or physical custody can be made without parental agreement or consent so long as it is in the child’s best interests.

Section 42-364(5) requires a hearing that gives the parties an opportunity to present evidence before a court imposes joint legal custody they did not request.

Jessen v. Line · filed 2007-11-27(5)

We find that the district court abused its discretion in awarding the parties joint legal custody of Parker without having the appropriate hearing as required by § 42-364(5) and Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043, 736 N.W.2d 365 (2007).

Section 42-364(3)(b) permits joint physical or legal custody regardless of parental agreement if, after an open-court hearing, the court specifically finds that joint custody serves the child’s best interests.

Leners v. Leners · filed 2019-04-19(3)(b)

A statute specifically provides that a court may order joint custody “if ...the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor child regardless of any parental agreement or consent.”

Section 42-364(3) permits joint physical or legal custody without parental agreement when the court specifically finds, after an open hearing, that joint custody is in the child’s best interests.

Blank v. Blank · filed 2019-07-12(3)

Section 42-364(3) allows for a joint physical custody award if (a) both parents agree to such an arrangement in the parenting plan and the court determines that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child or (b) the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor child regardless of any parental agreement or consent.

Section 42-364(3)(b) permits joint legal or physical custody when the court finds after an open-court hearing that it serves the child’s best interests, regardless of parental agreement or consent.

Manka v. Manka · filed 2019-11-19(3)(b)

A court may order joint custody “if the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor child regardless of any parental agreement or consent.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(3)(b) (Reissue 2016). ... We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s award of joint legal custody.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint legal or physical custody without parental agreement when the court finds it serves the child's best interests.

Schroeder v. Schroeder · filed 2017-04-11(3)

However, a trial court’s decision to award joint legal or physical custody can be made without parental agreement or consent so long as it is in the child’s best interests.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint physical or legal custody without parental agreement when, after a hearing in open court, the court specifically finds the arrangement is in the children’s best interests.

Schmidt v. Parkert · filed 2017-05-23(3)

The court may grant the parties joint legal custody or joint physical custody, or both, if either (a) both parents agree to such an arrangement in the parenting plan and the court determines that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the children or (b) the court specifically finds, after a hearing in open court, that joint physical custody or joint legal custody, or both, is in the best interests of the minor children regardless of any parental agreement or consent.

Section 42-364(3) permits a court to award joint legal or physical custody without parental agreement when the court finds it serves the child’s best interests.

Matschullat v. Matschullat · filed 2017-06-20(3)

However, a trial court’s decision to award joint legal or physical custody can be made without parental agreement or consent so long as it is in the child’s best interests.

Section 42-364(3)(b) permits a court to award joint legal or physical custody without parental agreement or consent when the award serves the child’s best interests.

Bornhorst v. Bornhorst · filed 2020-04-14(3)(b)

However, a trial court’s decision to award joint legal or physical custody can be made without parental agreement or consent so long as it is in the child’s best interests. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(3)(b) (Cum. Supp. 2018).

Section 42-364(3) permits a court to award joint legal or physical custody without parental agreement or consent when it is in the child’s best interests.

Bhatia v. Thomas-Bhatia · filed 2021-05-11(3)

Although courts typically do not award joint legal custody when the parties are unable to communicate effectively, a trial court’s decision to award joint legal or physical custody can be made without parental agreement or consent so long as it is in the child’s best interests.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint legal or physical custody without parental agreement or consent when it serves the child’s best interests.

Mohammed v. Akbar · filed 2022-01-25(3)

Although courts typically do not award joint legal custody when the parties are unable to communicate effectively, a trial court’s decision to award joint legal or physical custody can be made without parental agreement or consent so long as it is in the child’s best interests. § 42-364(3) (Cum. Supp. 2020); State on behalf of Maddox S. v. Matthew E., 23 Neb. App. 500, 873 N.W.2d 208 (2016).

Section 42-364 permits joint custody without both parents’ consent when the court expressly finds that joint custody is in the children’s best interests.

Parrish v. Parrish · filed 2023-04-11

And although Gregory and Angelica did not both consent to a joint custody arrangement, the court explicitly found joint custody to be in the children’s best interests. The record supports the district court’s decision.

Section 42-364(3) permits joint legal or physical custody without parental agreement when the court finds it serves the child’s best interests; it also applies in paternity actions.

State on behalf of Carter W. v. Anthony W. · filed 2016-05-31(3)

However, a trial court’s decision to award joint legal or physical custody can be made without parental agreement ... or consent so long as it is in the child’s best interests. ... Section 42-364 has also been applied to custody disputes in paternity actions.