Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

properly raised in the case and the district court should not have ordered or
considered genetic testing.
Cross v. Perreten, 257 Neb. 776, 600 N.W. 2d 780 (1999)
Paternity proceedings “are purely statutory and the courts can try such issues and
make such orders, in them, as the statute contemplates and none other.”
Relief in paternity actions is limited to that provided in the statutes
The statutory framework allows either the mother, the father, a guardian or next
friend, or the State to file suit for the determination of paternity
In an action to establish paternity, issues of custody and visitation rights are
incidental to the primary cause of action and fall within the general equity jurisdiction
of the district court. However, nothing in the paternity statutes permits a trial court to
consider issues unrelated to the question of paternity and the immediate incidents
thereto.
DeVaux v. DeVaux II, 245 Neb. 611, 514 N.W.2d 640 (1994)
Facts: Child born during marriage. Husband and wife then divorce, with wife awarded custody
and husband ordered to pay child support. Later, Mother filed an application to modify her
dissolution decree to reflect that her former husband was not the father of her minor child. Bio
dad of child (Mother’s new husband) intervened in the modification action filed by Mom.
Former husband objected to modification, alleging res judicata and unclean, um, hands on the
part of former wife. The district court granted the modification, and the former husband
appealed. Note: This case predates the enactment of Nebraska’s Disestablishment law. Se
also Alicia C. v. Jeremy C., (February 2012)
Paternity findings in a dissolution decree are a final judgment and are res judicata.
We hold that under the doctrine of res judicata, a finding of paternity in a dissolution
decree precludes the parties to the decree from relitigating paternity.
We express no opinion regarding [the biological father’s] right or ability to maintain a
paternity action. (See State on Behalf of Hopkins v. Batt, 253 Neb. 852, 573 N.W.2d
425 (1998)
A fundamental fact necessary to sustain an order of child support is paternity by the
man judicially obligated to pay such support. (citation omitted)
[P]aternity is not based on the best interests of the child. The fact that child
custody may be modified does not permit paternity findings to be disturbed.
Under §25-2001, a district court has the power to vacate or modify its own judgment
after term for one of nine reasons enumerated in the statute. The only one of these
reasons applicable to [the mother’s] claim is a motion for new trial based on newly
discovered evidence. [The mother] is not entitled to relief under §25-2001 because
she is out of time; claims of newly discovered evidence must be filed within 1 year of
the final judgment. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-1145 (Reissue 1989-since repealed).
However… §25-2001 is not the exclusive remedy for vacating or modifying a
judgment after term. Section 25-2001 is concurrent with the courts’ independent
equity jurisdiction. In order to make a sufficient showing for a new trial on the
grounds of newly discovered evidence, the proof in support thereof must show that
such evidence is now available which neither the litigant nor counsel could have
discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence… [The mother’s] application fails
to allege that the results of the blood tests could not have been discovered with the
exercise of reasonable diligence. [The mother] was aware of her extramarital sexual
relations. These sexual relations provided her with “some reason to awaken inquiry”
- 151 -