Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

[O]nly civil contempt orders issued before a final judgment in the main action are
interlocutory (and unappealable).
A court that has jurisdiction to issue an order also has the power to enforce it. A
court can issue orders that are necessary to carry its judgment or decree into effect.
Nebraska courts, through their inherent judicial power, have the authority to do all
things reasonably necessary for the proper administration of justice. And this
authority exists apart from any statutory grant of authority. The power to punish for
contempt is incident to every judicial tribune. It is derived from a court’s constitutional
power, without any expressed statutory aid, and is inherent in all courts of record.
A court of equity has the power to interpret its own injunctive decree if a party later
claims that a provision is unclear. The critical question for appeal purposes is
whether a clarification order merely interprets an injunctive decree or whether it
modifies the decree in a way that affects a party’s substantial right.
An appellate court, reviewing a final judgment or order in a contempt proceeding,
reviews for errors appearing on the record. When reviewing a judgment for errors
appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is
supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor
unreasonable.
Under Nebraska law, an order of contempt in a postjudgment proceeding to enforce
a previous final judgment is properly classified as a final order; the contempt order
affects a substantial right, made upon a summary application in an action after
judgment.
For appeal purposes, the distinction between criminal and civil contempt sanctions
has no relevance to whether a party may appeal from a final order in a supplemental
postjudgment contempt proceeding.
A trial court’s factual finding in a contempt pro eding will be upheld on appeal
unless the finding is clearly erroneous.
When a party to an action fails to comply with a court order made for the benefit of
the opposing party, such act is ordinarily a civil contempt, which requires willful
disobedience as an essential element. “Willful” means the violation was
committed intentionally, with knowledge that the act violated the court order.
A court cannot hold a person or party in contempt unless the order or consent
decree gave clear warning that the conduct in question was required or proscribed.
In civil cases, when a party’s interests are substantial and involve more than the
mere loss of money, but obviously do not involve a criminal conviction, due process
is satisfied by an intermediate “clear and convincing” standard of proof. Proof
beyond a reasonable doubt is a criminal trial protection that does not apply to civil
contempt proceedings.
As of the date of this opinion (April 16, 2010), outside of statutory procedures
imposing a different standard, it is the complainant’s burden to prove civil contempt
by clear and convincing evidence.
State v. Collins, 281 Neb. 927, 799 N.W.2d 693 (2011)
[A]n issue not presented to or decided on by the trial court is not an appropriate
issue for consideration on appeal. [W]e have applied those principles to find waiver
of statutory and even constitutional rights when a defendant fails to raise them.
Szawicki v. Szawicki, 17 Neb. App. 820, 770 N.W.2d 676 (2009)
Briefly speaking….
- 13 -