Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Support shall mean the providing of necessary shelter, food, clothing, care, medical support,
medical attention, education expenses, funeral expenses, or any other reasonable and necessary
expense.
Source: Laws 1985, Second Spec. Sess., LB 7, § 36; Laws 1991, LB 457, § 24.
Bird v. Bird, 205 Neb. 619, 288 N.W.2d 747 (1980)
Hamm v. Hamm, 228 Neb. 294, 422 N.W.2d 336 (1988)
While the cost of caring for a child is an important consideration in determining child
support, equally important is the father’s ability to make the payments. It is not
advantageous to either party to place the payments for child support beyond the
reach or capability of the father.
Cammarata v. Chambers, 6 Neb. App. 467, 574 N.W.2d 530 (1998)
A child support order may consist merely of an order for “no support.” Even if a
court order provides that no support is due from either parent, that does not change
the fact that there is an existing support order.
County Attorney may not in such cases seek to obtain a support order for custodial
parent under provisions of §43-512.03 (authorizing county attorney intervention to
establish an order for child support where no order presently exists.)
Collins v. Collins, 19 Neb. App. 529, 808 N.W.2d 905 (Feb. 2012)
Under the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines, if applicable, earning capacity may be
considered in lieu of a parent’s actual, present income and may include factors such
as work history, education, occupational skills, and job opportunities.
In the initial determination of child support, earning capacity may be used where
evidence is presented that the parent is capable of realizing such capacity through
reasonable effort.
The party seeking the modification has the burden to produce sufficient proof that a
material change of circumstances has occurred that warrants a modification.
For a court to modify child support, the material change of circumstances must exist
at the time of the modification trial.
Temporary unemployment is not a material change of circumstances.
Davis v. Davis, 275 Neb 944, 750 N.W.2d 696 (2008)
Facts: Post divorce, CP filed motion to force ex-husband to submit to a physical exam for
purposes of CP obtaining a life insurance policy on NCP’s life, to ensure future child
support/spousal support would be paid in event of NCPs death. Ex objected. Held: CP’s
motion must fail as against public policy
CP has an insurable interest in the NCP’s life. But an insurable interest does not
give her the right to own a policy on Henry’s life without his consent. Section 44-704
specifically requires adult insureds to consent to insurance policies on their lives
unless they or their spouses are the owners of the policies.
Citing Hopkins v. Hopkins, 328 Md. 263, 614 A.2d 96 (1992): the consent
requirement serves two purposes: (1) It prevents wagering on human lives and (2) it
protects human lives by removing the temptations and risks associated with other
persons’ having an interest in both the insured’s life and death. “Policies issued in
violation of this rule ‘are not dangerous because they are illegal: they are illegal
because they are dangerous.’”
- 18 -