## Facts

- Cynthia M. Brown (mother) and Dwight E. Brown, Jr. (father) divorced in 1997 and were awarded joint legal and physical custody of two minor children (born 1993 and 1995).
- The children spent approximately half their time with each parent under a functioning joint-custody arrangement in Lincoln, Nebraska.
- In 1998, father sought to reduce child support; mother cross-petitioned to modify custody and requested permission to relocate with the children to Suffolk County, New York, based on her nursing-school graduation, a New York job offer, and father’s remarriage.
- Father opposed relocation, alleged concerns about mother’s living arrangements, and sought custody with mother paying support.
- After trial, the district court denied mother’s relocation and sole-custody request, terminated father’s child-support obligation, and ordered mother to pay child support.
- Mother appealed, arguing relocation would improve economic prospects and provide a more diverse racial and cultural environment for the children.
- The record contained no specific evidence the children had experienced discrimination in Lincoln and no concrete evidence comparing local demographics in Nebraska and Suffolk County.

## Issues

1. Whether Nebraska’s relocation framework requires the same showing when a parent with joint legal and physical custody seeks to relocate out of state with the children.
2. Whether mother proved a material change in circumstances and that relocation coupled with a change to sole custody would serve the children’s best interests.
3. Whether, and to what extent, the children’s race and ethnic background may be considered in the best-interests analysis supporting relocation.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held that the Farnsworth relocation procedures and criteria apply when parents share joint legal and physical custody.
- The court concluded mother had a legitimate reason to consider leaving the state (career opportunity), but she failed to prove relocation and a change to sole custody were in the children’s best interests.
- The court held race and cultural environment may be considered as part of best interests, but mother’s showing was speculative and did not justify relocation on this record.
- The district court’s child-support modification remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- A parent seeking relocation with children must first prove a material change in circumstances affecting the children’s best interests by showing a legitimate reason to leave the state and an expressed intent to do so.
- If the threshold is met, the moving parent must prove it is in the children’s best interests to live with that parent in the new location.
- Best-interests analysis for relocation considers: (1) each parent’s motives; (2) the move’s potential to improve the quality of life for the child and relocating parent; and (3) the impact on the child’s contact with the nonmoving parent under reasonable visitation.
- These burdens and factors apply in joint physical custody cases; joint custody does not create a different or lower relocation standard.
- Race and ethnicity may be weighed in best interests only as part of an evidence-based analysis and may not control absent concrete proof of harm or meaningful benefit tied to the proposed move.
- Appellate review is de novo on the record, with weight given to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility.

## Conclusion

The court extended Nebraska’s established relocation framework to joint-custody disputes and affirmed denial of relocation and custody modification because the moving parent did not prove the move would improve the children’s welfare and it would substantially reduce the children’s existing, frequent contact with the other parent; generalized claims about racial and cultural advantages, without supporting evidence, were insufficient.


Brown v. Brown, 621 N.W.2d 70 (Neb. 2000)