## Facts

- Ryan M. Curtis (father) and Ryonee S. Curtis (mother) are divorced parents of one child, Jordyn Ashley Curtis (born June 22, 2001).
- The dissolution decree awarded joint legal custody, primary physical custody to the mother, and reasonable visitation to the father.
- After the decree, the mother and child lived in Falls City, Nebraska, in the home of the mother’s boyfriend, Scott McCann.
- The boyfriend sold the Falls City home and planned to build a house in Big Lake, Missouri, approximately 17.6 miles from Falls City.
- The mother sought court permission to remove the child from Nebraska to Missouri so she could reside with the boyfriend (and his children), initially in a rented Missouri home during construction.
- The mother testified the move would not change her Nebraska employment, the child’s school attendance, or the father’s visitation schedule.
- The mother acknowledged she would have no legal ownership interest in the boyfriend’s planned Missouri home.
- The father opposed removal and filed a cross-complaint seeking sole physical custody.

## Issues

1. Whether the custodial parent proved a legitimate reason to remove the minor child from Nebraska to Missouri.
2. If a legitimate reason existed, whether removal would be in the child’s best interests.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the order granting removal.
- The court held the mother failed to establish a legitimate reason for the child to leave Nebraska.
- Because the legitimate-reason requirement was not met, the court did not reach the child’s best interests.

## Legal Principles

- Nebraska removal cases apply a sequential two-step analysis: (1) the custodial parent must prove a legitimate reason to leave the state; (2) only then does the court evaluate whether removal is in the child’s best interests.
- Remarriage and significant career opportunities may qualify as legitimate reasons; personal preference and non-substantial life changes generally do not.
- A desire to continue cohabiting with a boyfriend, without marriage or a comparable substantial change, is not a legitimate reason for removal.
- Financial considerations may support removal only when supported by evidence showing a genuine need for relocation; unsupported claims (including failure to show comparable affordable housing is unavailable locally) do not satisfy the burden.
- When the legitimate-reason threshold is not proved, the court may deny removal without conducting a best-interests analysis.

## Conclusion

The appellate court denied the requested relocation because the mother did not prove a legitimate reason to move the child out of Nebraska, and the court therefore ended the analysis without weighing best-interests factors.


Curtis v. Curtis, 759 N.W.2d 269 (Neb. Ct. App. 2008)