Extracurricular Expenses Are Incidents of Support Beyond Worksheet 1: Scott v. Scott (Neb. 2025)

Introduction

Scott v. Scott, 319 Neb. 877 (Sept. 12, 2025), is a comprehensive opinion from the Nebraska Supreme Court that touches nearly every major component of a modern dissolution case: custody and parenting time, legal decisionmaking authority, alcohol restrictions during parenting time, allocation of children’s extracurricular expenses, equitable division of property (including valuation dates and treatment of personal property), alimony, and attorney fees. The Court affirmed the district court on all issues.

While most holdings reaffirm settled doctrine, the Opinion meaningfully clarifies two recurring points in Nebraska family law:

At the Supreme Court level, it confirms that courts may allocate children’s extracurricular expenses as “other incidents of support” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364.17, even when child support is calculated using Worksheet 1; Worksheet 1 and § 4-206 do not limit courts to only uninsured medical/dental/vision expenses.
In custody disputes, courts may consider concrete “alienating” conduct when assessing best interests without requiring an expert “diagnosis” of parental alienation.

The parties, Robert E. Scott (appellant/father) and Rebecca F. Scott (appellee/mother), were married in 2005 and have three children. Following a complex pretrial history involving an ex parte protection order and evolving temporary custody arrangements, a six-day bench trial resulted in a decree awarding joint legal custody, primary physical custody to Rebecca, final decisionmaking authority on key legal custody domains to Rebecca, a parenting-time alcohol restriction for Robert (corrected by nunc pro tunc), allocation of extracurricular costs, an equitable division of property (including awarding the marital home to Rebecca and a Minnesota cabin to Robert), alimony to Rebecca, and attorney fees to Rebecca.

Summary of the Opinion

The Nebraska Supreme Court (Funke, C.J.) affirmed in all respects. Key holdings include:

Custody: Primary physical custody to Rebecca was not an abuse of discretion. The court credited evidence of an unhealthy “enmeshment” between Robert and the oldest child, found only one minor instance of alleged physical contact by Rebecca (insufficient to change the outcome), and emphasized best-interests factors under § 43-2923.
Legal decisionmaking: Although the parties retained joint legal custody, Rebecca was granted final decisionmaking authority over medical, educational, and religious issues due to high conflict and historical involvement.
Alcohol restriction: The parenting plan (corrected nunc pro tunc) properly required Robert to abstain from alcohol in conjunction with his parenting time, supported by evidence of past consumption patterns and psychological evaluation findings.
Extracurricular expenses: The court approved requiring Robert to pay specified percentages of extracurricular costs, explicitly confirming that Worksheet 1 does not limit such allocations; § 42-364.17 permits courts to apportion extracurricular expenses as additional incidents of support.
Property division: No abuse of discretion in (a) awarding certain cabin personal property to Rebecca, (b) rejecting vague claims to premarital property not clearly identified, (c) addressing alleged “unaccounted” items that were in fact itemized under slightly different names, (d) valuing an investment account as of the separation date based on control and fairness, and (e) awarding the marital home to Rebecca.
Alimony: $5,000 per month for nine years to Rebecca was reasonable given the parties’ long marriage, roles during marriage, relative earnings, and monthly needs.
Attorney fees: Award of $30,000 to Rebecca was within the court’s discretion given the complexity, time involved, amounts in controversy, prevailing results, and comparative fee burdens.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Standard of Review: The Court reaffirmed that dissolution cases are reviewed de novo on the record for abuse of discretion, with weight accorded to the trial court’s credibility findings where evidence conflicts (Seemann v. Seemann, 318 Neb. 643 (2025); Stava v. Stava, 318 Neb. 32 (2024)). This framework governed all issues, especially custody and property division.
Best Interests & Alienating Conduct: The Court cited long-standing authority allowing consideration of conduct that “poisons” a child’s relationship with a parent as contrary to the child’s welfare (Hossack v. Hossack, 176 Neb. 368 (1964)), and more recent Court of Appeals decisions (Conley v. Conley, 33 Neb. App. 98 (2024); Larson v. Larson, 33 Neb. App. 609 (2025)). This underpinned the holding that expert “diagnosis” of parental alienation is not necessary; the court looks to concrete behavior.
Extracurricular Expenses as “Support”: The Court adopted the analytical approach of Kelly v. Kelly, 29 Neb. App. 198 (2020), grounded in Caniglia v. Caniglia, 285 Neb. 930 (2013), which recognized “incidents of support” outside the monthly child support installment. The Opinion distinguishes Smith v. King, 29 Neb. App. 152 (2020), in which clothing costs were not listed in § 42-364.17 and thus not appropriately shifted, while extracurricular expenses are specifically enumerated and may be allocated.
Property Division: The Court reiterated the three-step framework under § 42-365 (classification, valuation, equitable division), with the “polestar” being fairness and reasonableness and a general expectation that each spouse receives one-third to one-half of the marital estate (Stava v. Stava).
Valuation Dates: The Court reaffirmed flexibility—valuation dates must be rationally related to the property being divided; courts are not restricted to one date (Karas v. Karas, 314 Neb. 857 (2023); Radmanesh v. Radmanesh, 315 Neb. 393 (2023)).
Alimony: The Court applied § 42-365 factors and recent alimony jurisprudence emphasizing maintenance based on relative economic circumstances (Seivert v. Alli, 309 Neb. 246 (2021); Simons v. Simons, 312 Neb. 136 (2022)). The analysis also recognized that assets not divided (e.g., trust funds) can still be relevant to alimony (Ainslie v. Ainslie, 249 Neb. 656 (1996)), and that alimony must account for child support when assessing a payor’s ability to pay (Wiedel v. Wiedel, 300 Neb. 13 (2018)).
Attorney Fees: The award follows the “uniform course of procedure” permitting fees in dissolution matters (Dycus v. Dycus, 307 Neb. 426 (2020); Beatty v. Poitier, 319 Neb. 56 (2025)), considering case nature, amounts, services performed, results, time, difficulty, and customary charges.
Acceptance of Benefits: While Rebecca invoked the acceptance-of-benefits rule (Gentele v. Gentele, 319 Neb. 182 (2025)), the Court did not rely on waiver to resolve the personal property dispute, instead affirming on the merits—providing a cautionary note but not a dispositive rule here.
Joint Legal Custody in High-Conflict Cases: The Court cited Schmeidler v. Schmeidler, 25 Neb. App. 802 (2018), observing that courts are reluctant to award joint legal custody—or at minimum will designate a final decisionmaker—where parents cannot communicate effectively.

Legal Reasoning

Custody and Legal Decisionmaking

Applying § 43-2923’s “best interests” factors, the Court affirmed awarding primary physical custody to Rebecca. The district court credited therapist testimony (Keady) describing an unhealthy “enmeshment” between Robert and the oldest child, consistent with other evidence that the child used adult language and concepts and “idealized” father while “demonizing” mother. The trial court considered Riley’s history with the child but was entitled to weigh Keady’s observations and consider the therapy context ordered to repair the mother-child relationship.

Regarding alleged abuse by Rebecca, the Court emphasized that only one disputed minor incident was shown (a school drop-off “smack”), with no corroborating injury observed and Riley deeming it “minor.” No credible pattern of abuse existed. Regarding mental health, the Court rejected a categorical disqualification of Rebecca: both parties’ psychological evaluations showed traits and anxiety, and the dispositive focus was on functioning and role-modeling, not labels.

On legal custody, although joint legal custody remained, the Court affirmed giving Rebecca final decisionmaking authority for medical, educational, and religious issues. The record showed high conflict, communication problems, and practical need for a tie-breaker. Evidence showed Rebecca historically handled educational and extracurricular involvement. Robert’s request that he retain final say on mental health was undermined by conflicting evidence and concerns that he had disparaged Rebecca to the children under the rubric of “mental illness.”

Alcohol Restriction During Parenting Time

A nunc pro tunc order corrected a clerical error to make clear the alcohol restriction governed Robert, not Rebecca. The restriction was supported by testimony about Robert drinking around the children, anger associated with drinking, carrying alcohol (flasks) including in vehicles, and psychological evaluation indications of a developing alcohol problem in the past. Although the most vivid incident (ice rink) was in 2017, the broader pattern justified a narrowly tailored prohibition linked to parenting time.

Extracurricular Expenses: Beyond Worksheet 1

This is the opinion’s clearest law-development point. The Court rejected the father’s argument that because child support was calculated using Worksheet 1, the court could only add uninsured medical/dental/vision expenses and could not allocate extracurricular costs. Citing § 42-364.17 and Kelly v. Kelly (and aligning with Caniglia), the Court explained that “incidents of support” include extracurricular, educational, and other extraordinary expenses expressly contemplated by statute and recognized by the Guidelines as outside the base monthly installment. The Supreme Court further stated it saw “nothing in worksheet 1 or in § 4-206” imposing a contrary limit. In short:

Worksheet 1 calculates the base monthly support obligation.
Courts retain statutory authority under § 42-364.17 to allocate extracurricular expenses in addition to that base amount.
Limits exist where the statute is silent (e.g., ordinary clothing expenses in Smith v. King), underscoring the importance of statutory enumeration.

Property Division

The Court reaffirmed the three-step § 42-365 process and the fairness “polestar.” Application here highlights three practical lessons:

Itemization and Identification Matter: The district court preferred Rebecca’s Exhibit 252 because it clearly itemized property by location and description. By contrast, Robert’s lists used broad, vague labels (e.g., “family silver,” “old family furniture bedroom sets”) and included duplications. On this record, it was not error to rely on the clearer inventory and to reject imprecise claims to “premarital” items—though the decree was amended to explicitly set off Robert’s gold coin collection and family watches as nonmarital property.
Personal Property Located at the Cabin: Although the cabin itself went to Robert, certain personal property at the cabin was awarded to Rebecca. The district court reasoned that Robert had already removed multiple loads of property from the marital home; awarding the listed cabin items to Rebecca contributed to an equitable overall distribution. The Supreme Court discerned the equitable rationale and affirmed.
“Missing” Items Were Mostly Accounted For: On challenge, many allegedly omitted items were found in Appendix E under slightly different names (e.g., “two wingback chairs” vs. “two upholstered chairs,” “Subzero refrigerator,” “Jubilation cross”). This underscores the importance of consistent nomenclature in proofs of property.

Valuation Date: Rational Relation to Control and Fairness

The Court upheld using the separation date to value one investment account in Robert’s name, emphasizing the flexibility to select dates that are rationally related to the asset and equitable division. The mother had no control over the account after filing. The court also used non-December valuation dates for other similar accounts, and the father did not challenge those. The Opinion reaffirms that trial courts are not locked into a single valuation date across the estate; the inquiry is equitable, contextual, and discretionary.

Awarding the Marital Home to the Custodial Parent

Given that Rebecca has primary physical custody and the home included child-centered improvements, awarding her the $1.5 million marital residence was not “illogical,” especially with a substantial equalization payment ($614,272.23) facilitating refinance. The Court rejected a liquidity-based argument against this disposition, focusing instead on the family’s concrete needs and the equitable balance of the entire distribution.

Alimony

The nine-year, $5,000 per month alimony award fit the statutory factors:

Duration and Roles: An 18-year marriage with Rebecca working part time for much of the marriage to care for the children.
Income Disparity: Robert’s annual income ranged between approximately $313,000 and $390,000 (based on his own evidence), while the court accepted Rebecca’s evidence showing average earnings of about $81,000. Even using Robert’s higher figure for Rebecca (~$139,000), her monthly income would still fall short of her reasonable expenses.
Ability to Pay After Child Support: Robert’s own calculation left him with approximately $18,294 monthly after support and alimony, undermining any claim of inability to maintain himself.

Purposefully, the alimony award mitigates the disparity in post-dissolution resources and helps Rebecca partially recapture the marital standard of living while reestablishing full-time practice and parenting primary custodial responsibilities.

Attorney Fees

The court did not abuse its discretion awarding Rebecca $30,000 in fees:

Scope and Complexity: A multi-year, six-day trial involving high-conflict custody issues and a substantial marital estate (the home alone valued at $1.5 million).
Hours and Rates: Rebecca’s current counsel documented 558 hours at $225/hour; total fees across prior counsel exceeded $225,000—less than Robert’s total spend—and she had not paid them off.
Results: Rebecca prevailed on central issues—primary physical custody and final decisionmaking authority.
No Double Counting: The trial court excluded Rebecca’s ongoing attorney-fee payments from her monthly expense calculation for alimony purposes, and considered the equalization payment in its analysis, avoiding duplication.

Impact

Extracurricular Expenses Clarified at the Supreme Court Level: Scott cements that extracurricular costs may be allocated as additional “incidents of support” notwithstanding use of Worksheet 1. Litigants and courts can confidently craft orders apportioning such expenses, while remaining mindful that categories not listed in § 42-364.17 (like ordinary clothing in Smith v. King) are generally not shiftable.
Alienating Conduct vs. “Parental Alienation” Diagnosis: The Court reiterates that judges may assess alienating behavior as part of the best-interests inquiry without expert diagnosis. Practitioners should focus proofs on specific conduct and its impact on the child rather than expert labels.
Valuation Date Flexibility: Scott reinforces that courts may choose different valuation dates for different assets when justified by control and fairness. Counsel should propose valuation dates asset-by-asset and build records explaining why each chosen date is equitable.
Importance of Clear Itemization: The decision rewards parties who present complete, non-duplicative, and clearly described property inventories. Vague descriptions risk forfeiture or judicial reliance on the other party’s clearer schedule.
Parenting-Time Alcohol Conditions: The Court approves a targeted abstention condition where the record supports risk to children, even if the most salient incident is not recent. This may encourage narrowly tailored, evidence-based parenting-time safeguards.
Final Decisionmaker in High-Conflict Joint Legal Custody: Scott exemplifies the Nebraska approach of appointing a tie-breaker when co-parent communication is unworkable, and confirms courts may assign that authority in domains like medical, educational, and religious decisions based on history and child welfare.

Complex Concepts Simplified

De Novo Review with Abuse-of-Discretion Overlay: The Supreme Court independently reviews the record but gives deference to the trial judge’s credibility assessments and will only reverse if a decision is untenable and denies a just result.
Best Interests of the Child: A nonexclusive set of factors (relationship with each parent, child’s wishes, health and welfare, evidence of abuse, etc.) guides custody. Courts also consider moral fitness, stability, and the effect of disrupting existing relationships.
Alienating Conduct vs. “Parental Alienation” Diagnosis: The former refers to specific behaviors (e.g., badmouthing, undermining contact) that harm the child’s relationship with the other parent; Nebraska courts assess the conduct directly—an expert diagnosis is not required to weigh this factor.
Incidents of Support: Beyond the monthly child support figure, statutes and the Guidelines recognize additional categories—like extracurricular and educational expenses—that courts may allocate between parents.
Three-Step Property Division: (1) Classify marital vs. nonmarital property; (2) value assets and debts; (3) divide equitably. Exact 50/50 is not required; fairness is the “polestar.”
Valuation Date: Courts can select different valuation dates for different assets so long as the choice is rationally related to the asset and furthers equitable division (e.g., using separation date for an account controlled by one spouse).
Alimony: A support mechanism based on the parties’ circumstances, marriage duration, contributions, and the supported spouse’s ability to work without harming minor children’s interests, along with income/earning capacity and overall equities.
Attorney Fees in Dissolution: A recognized exception to the American Rule in Nebraska; courts weigh complexity, time, results, amounts in controversy, and customary rates.

Conclusion

Scott v. Scott is a wide-ranging affirmation of trial court discretion in contested dissolutions. It solidifies, at the Nebraska Supreme Court level, that extracurricular expenses are allocable as additional incidents of support irrespective of Worksheet 1—a practical clarification that will directly affect settlement drafting and trial orders. It also underscores that courts may (and should) evaluate specific alienating conduct without requiring an expert “parental alienation” label, keeping the focus on child welfare and observable behavior.

Beyond these clarifications, Scott reinforces bedrock principles: best-interests analysis guided by concrete evidence; the propriety of appointing a final decisionmaker amid high conflict; targeted parenting-time protections when justified; flexible, equitable valuation approaches; and thoughtful use of alimony and fee awards to temper post-dissolution disparities. Practitioners should heed the opinion’s practical lessons—present clear itemizations, justify asset-specific valuation dates, and frame support requests to align with statutory incidents of support—to position their clients for fair, durable outcomes under Nebraska law.