Meadows v. Meadows

is example of leniency that can be appealed by State pursuant
to § 29-2320).
Accordingly, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2322 (Reissue
2008), we remand the cause with directions to vacate the
credit for time spent in the residential substance abuse treat-
ment facility.
CONCLUSION
The district court erred in giving Anderson credit against
his jail sentence for time spent in a residential substance abuse
treatment facility. Its judgment is reversed, and the cause is
remanded with directions to vacate this credit.
R eveRsed and Remanded with diRections.
L isa anne meadows , appeLLant, v.
monte L ee meadows , appeLLee .
789 N.W.2d 519
Filed March 30, 2010. 	No. A-09-531.
1. Judgments: Statutes: Appeal and Error. Questions of law and statutory inter-
pretation require an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the
decision made by the court below.
2. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. For an appellate court to acquire
jurisdiction of an appeal, there must be a final order entered by the court from
which the appeal is taken.
3. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue
2008), an order is final for purposes of an appeal if it affects a substantial right
and (1) determines the action and prevents a judgment, (2) is made during a spe-
cial proceeding, or (3) is made on summary application in an action after judg-
ment is rendered.
4. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. Overruling a motion to decline
jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1207 (Reissue 1998) as an inconvenient
forum does not affect a substantial right and is not a final, appealable order.
5. ____: ____: ____. Overruling a motion to decline jurisdiction under Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 43-1244 (Reissue 2008) as an inconvenient forum does not affect a sub-
stantial right and is not a final, appealable order.
Appeal from the District Court for Buffalo County: wiLLiam
t. wRight, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
MeADOWS v. MeADOWS 	333
Cite as 18 Neb. App. 333
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:13 AM CST

Kent A. Schroeder, of Ross, Schroeder & George, L.L.C.,
for appellant.
John P. Rademacher, of Tye & Rademacher, P.C., L.L.O., for
appellee.
inbody, Chief Judge, and sieveRs and casseL, Judges.
inbody, Chief Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Lisa Anne Meadows appeals the Buffalo County District
Court’s order denying her motion to dismiss her ex-husband’s
complaint for modification of their dissolution decree after
the court determined that Nebraska was not an inconvenient
forum. Pursuant to this court’s authority under Neb. Ct. R. App.
P. § 2-111(B)(1) (rev. 2008), this case was ordered submitted
without oral argument.
STATeMeNT OF FACTS
Monte Lee Meadows and Lisa were married in July 1995,
and one child was born of the marriage. The decree of dissolu-
tion was entered by the Buffalo County District Court in April
2004. The parties were awarded joint legal and physical custody
of their child. Shortly thereafter, Lisa and the child moved to
Rock Port, Atchison County, Missouri, wherein Lisa registered
a certified copy of the decree with the clerk of the Atchison
County Circuit Court. The record indicates that this move was
done with the verbal consent of Monte, but without any noti-
fication to or any order of the Buffalo County District Court.
In 2005, Monte secured new employment in Omaha, Nebraska,
which allowed him to significantly cut his transportation costs
to visit and pick up the child, which Monte had previously been
doing from his home in Kearney, Nebraska.
Since that time, the child has attended school in Rock Port,
and at the time of the hearing, the child was enrolled as a
sixth grader. During the several years since the decree had
been entered, Monte continued to exercise frequent visitation
with the child, which visitation included the majority of the
summers, at least one weekend a month, and many holidays.
334 	18 NeBRASKA APPeLLATe RePORTS

The parties’ visitation arrangement appears to have taken place
without issue until a holiday visit in December 2008, when the
child advised Monte she and Lisa were having some problems.
Monte did not return the child to Lisa after the holiday ended
and, instead, enrolled her in an Omaha school. After determin-
ing where the child had been enrolled, Lisa drove to Omaha,
picked up the child from school, and returned to Rock Port
without informing Monte.
On January 23, 2009, Monte filed a complaint for modifica-
tion of the dissolution decree in the Buffalo County District
Court, alleging that it was in the child’s best interests that he be
awarded her sole legal and physical custody. One day earlier,
Lisa had filed a similar complaint for modification of the dis-
solution decree in the Atchison County Circuit Court, asking
that she be awarded the child’s sole physical custody, that the
parties be allowed to maintain joint legal custody, and that the
court order a specific parenting schedule for Monte.
On April 21, 2009, a hearing for temporary custody was
held in the Buffalo County District Court, at which hearing the
court also took up a motion filed by Lisa to dismiss pursuant
to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1244 (Reissue 2008) of the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and enforcement Act (UCCJeA).
See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1226 to 43-1266 (Reissue 2008).
Lisa alleged that Nebraska was an inconvenient forum and that
the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction in order for
the matter to be heard in Missouri. evidence, in the form of
numerous affidavits, was submitted to the court, and the matter
was taken under advisement. The district court found that, in
accordance with § 43-1244, Nebraska was not an inconvenient
forum and ordered that custody temporarily remain the same
as set forth in the dissolution decree until the final hearing.
It is from this order that Lisa has timely appealed the district
court’s denial of her motion to dismiss on the ground of incon-
venient forum.
ASSIGNMeNT OF eRROR
Lisa’s sole assignment of error is that the district court erred
by denying her motion to dismiss pursuant to § 43-1244, find-
ing that Nebraska was not an inconvenient forum.
MeADOWS v. MeADOWS 	335
Cite as 18 Neb. App. 333

STANDARD OF ReVIeW
[1] Questions of law and statutory interpretation require an
appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the deci-
sion made by the court below. Zahl v. Zahl, 273 Neb. 1043,
736 N.W.2d 365 (2007).
ANALYSIS
As noted above, this appeal involves a still-pending appli-
cation for modification, regarding child custody, of a decree
of dissolution. Lisa has brought an appeal to this court
regarding the district court’s order overruling her motion to
dismiss on the ground of inconvenient forum, arguing that
it was error for the court to rule as such. Monte argues that
the appeal should be dismissed because it is not an appeal
from a final, appealable order as required by Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 25-1902 (Reissue 2008). Therefore, we must first determine
whether this appeal is properly before us as a final, appeal-
able order.
[2,3] For an appellate court to acquire jurisdiction of an
appeal, there must be a final order entered by the court from
which the appeal is taken. Williams v. Baird, 273 Neb. 977,
735 N.W.2d 383 (2007). Specifically, § 25-1902 provides that
a party may appeal from a court’s order only if the decision
is a final, appealable order. Under § 25-1902, an order is
final for purposes of an appeal if it affects a substantial right
and (1) determines the action and prevents a judgment, (2) is
made during a special proceeding, or (3) is made on summary
application in an action after judgment is rendered. See Blue
Cross and Blue Shield v. Dailey, 268 Neb. 733, 687 N.W.2d
689 (2004).
[4] The Supreme Court has previously held that overruling
a motion to decline jurisdiction on the ground of inconvenient
forum does not affect a substantial right and is not a final,
appealable order. See Hernandez v. Blankenship, 257 Neb. 235,
596 N.W.2d 292 (1999). In that case, a petition for a change
of custody was brought by the father in Dawson County,
Nebraska, and the mother filed a motion to decline jurisdic-
tion on the ground of inconvenient forum pursuant to Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 43-1207 (Reissue 1998) of the Nebraska Child
336 	18 NeBRASKA APPeLLATe RePORTS

Custody Jurisdiction Act (NCCJA), arguing that Missouri
was a more convenient forum to determine the merits of
the case. The Supreme Court found that the district court’s
order overruling the motion did not diminish the mother’s
available claims and defenses regarding custody of the child.
Hernandez v. Blankenship, supra. The Supreme Court found
that the determination to decline or retain jurisdiction did
not “substantially impinge on any constitutional right” and,
further, that such a motion was not reviewable until after
a final judgment. Id. at 240, 596 N.W.2d at 296, citing
Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 108 S. Ct. 1945,
100 L. ed. 2d 517 (1988).
Since that time, the Nebraska Legislature has adopted
the UCCJeA to repeal and replace the NCCJA, operative
January 1, 2004. See, 2003 Neb. Laws, L.B. 148; White
v. White, 271 Neb. 43, 709 N.W.2d 325 (2006). Section
43-1207 (court, inconvenient forum, determination, commu-
nication with another court) was repealed and replaced by
§ 43-1244 (inconvenient forum). In Hernandez v. Blankenship,
supra, the holding of the Supreme Court was based upon
an NCCJA determination under § 43-1207, and thus, Lisa
argues, Hernandez should now be overturned because the
ruling therein is “inequitable, as it does affect a substantial
right.” Brief for appellant at 7.
[5] A close and careful review of the NCCJA’s § 43-1207,
and the more recently adopted UCCJeA’s § 43-1244, reveals
that the language contained within the two statutes is nearly
identical. The language of the UCCJeA’s statute is generally
more condensed, but expands upon the factors that the trial
court shall consider in making its determination. Therefore,
we find nothing in the current UCCJeA version which would
indicate that § 43-1244 now affects a substantial right, and we
accordingly hold that overruling a motion to decline jurisdic-
tion under § 43-1244 on the ground of inconvenient forum does
not affect a substantial right and is not a final, appealable order,
as was similarly held under § 43-1207.
Therefore, the district court’s denial of Lisa’s motion to
dismiss on the ground of inconvenient forum under § 43-1244
does not diminish any of Lisa’s claims or defenses, as the
MeADOWS v. MeADOWS 	337
Cite as 18 Neb. App. 333

proceedings are only at the temporary stage and a final deter-
mination regarding custody has not yet been made. As such,
the order of the district court denying Lisa’s motion to dis-
miss on the ground of inconvenient forum under § 43-1244
does not affect a substantial right and is not a final, appeal-
able order.
appeaL dismissed.
338 	18 NeBRASKA APPeLLATe RePORTS