Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

subsequent award as the basis for decreasing the original obligation. It would not be
in the best interests of the children to permit (the obligor) to effectively “play one
family against the other” in order to decrease his child support obligation to both.
Erica J. v. Dewitt, 265 Neb. 728, 659 N.W.2d 315 (2003)
Facts: District court modified child support, but did not do so retro to the date of the filing of the
complaint to modify. State appealed, arguing that the court should have back dated the upward
modification. Held: District court acted within its discretion in not back dating modification.
[T]he delays (in bringing the modification action to trial) do not appear to be the fault
of any one individual. We conclude that the district court’s determination to make the
increase retroactive to the first day of the month of the hearing before the
referee…was not an abuse of discretion, and we therefore affirm that portion of
the court’s judgment.
Ferry v. Ferry, 201 Neb. 595, 271 N.W.2d 450 (1978)
Where an award for child support is made in one amount for each succeeding
month for more than one child, it will be presumed to continue in force for the full
amount until the youngest child reaches his majority. The proper remedy, if this be
deemed unjust, is to seek a modification of the decree in the court which entered it
on the basis of the changed circumstances.
Gammel v. Gammel, 259 Neb. 738, 612 N.W.2d 207 (2000)
Citing Rule Q [now § 4-217] of the child support guidelines, stating that a 10% or
greater deviation from the guidelines will justify a modification. A 10% or greater
deviation creates a rebuttable presumption of a material change in circumstances
justifying a modification.
Gangwish v. Gangwish, 267 Neb. 901, 678 N.W.2d 503 (2004)
The paramount concern and question in determining child support, whether in the
initial marital dissolution action or in the proceedings for modification of decree, is
the best interests of the child.
Grahovac v. Grahovac, 12 Neb. App. 585, 680 N.W.2d 616 (2004)
(Voluntary Wastage)
It is well established that a “material change in circumstances” in modification of
child support cases is analogous to the “good cause” standard articulated for
modification of alimony. See also Pope v. Pope, 251 Neb. 773, 559 N.W.2d 192
(1997)
Non-custodial parent who lost high paying job due to alcoholism does not qualify for
reduction in alimony or child support due to voluntary wastage of his talents.
Grange v. Grange, 15 Neb. App. 297, 725 N.W.2d 823 (2006 – Sarpy Co.)
A material change in circumstances means the occurrence of something which,
had it been known to the dissolution court at the time of the initial decree, would
have persuaded the court to decree differently. Heistand v. Heistand, 267 Neb.
300, 673 N.W.2d 541 (2004).
We bear in mind that the definition refers to “circumstances” in the plural form; …
Where…the party seeking modification advances multiple reasons for modification,
- 131 -