may give weight to the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another. Reichert v. Reichert, 246 Neb. 31, 516 N.W.2d 600 (1994). A judicial abuse of discretion exists when reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in matters submitted for disposition. Adrian v. Adrian, 249 Neb. 53, 541 N.W.2d 388 (1995); Evenson v. Evenson, 248 Neb. 719, 538 N.W.2d 746 (1995). In her sole assignment of error, Rosalie alleges that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Patrick’s job loss constituted an unanticipated material and substantial change in circumstances. Rosalie argues that Patrick did not demonstrate good cause justify (1967) (<HOLDING>). We have held, in the context of the
holding that in order to obtain a reduction in child support payments a parent must show that his lack of ability to pay is not due to his own voluntaiy act recognizing that fathers parental rights were terminated based upon his incarceration and his behavior while in prison his history of substance abuse and the fact that his child support payments are in arrears holding that reduction in income resulting from voluntary employment decision does not require corresponding reduction in payor spouses support obligations even if decision was reasonable and made in good faith holding that husbands knowledge of his obligation of support and his subsequent election to enter employment that would substantially reduce his income and make it impossible to meet his obligations would not justify reduction in support holding that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof because he offered absolutely no evidence to support his claim that the costs of arbitration will deny him an effective forum to vindicate his statutory rights