Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

impact of the probation term may help ensure that [the defendant] maintains steady
employment and fulfills his family responsibilities.”
Once probation is imposed, the defendant’s ability to pay must be considered before
a court can revoke the probation and impose a jail term for violating a probation
condition requiring payments.
State v. Menuey, 239 Neb. 513, 476 N.W.2d 846 (1991)
Facts: Following divorce mother obtained full custody of the children in a modification action,
and the father’s child support obligation was then increased. Father responded by quitting his
job, leaving town and traveling the world, but never paying his support ‘because he was too
depressed.’ He worked many jobs in many different locations, but never paid support. At one
point he told the mother that “if anyone tried to make him pay more than $300, he would just
leave and [she] would never be able to get a dime and [she] would never be able to do nothing
about it.” In a letter to his work supervisor he wrote: “I feel that I can no longer work for a
company that allows an ex-spouse to garnishe [sic] my paycheck at will for any whim she
choses [sic]. . . . I am better off working for a non-corporation.” Criminal nonsupport charges
were later filed. A jury returned a guilty verdict. Father appealed.
There is more than sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant is and has
always been able-bodied and capable of earning at a rate sufficient to enable him to
support his children as directed in the modification order and that he simply elected,
for reasons of his own, not to do so.
[T]he failure to support one’s children is a grave and ignoble offense and is to
be treated as such.
State v. Reuter, 216 Neb. 325, 343 N.W.2d 907 (1984)
Facts: Defendant was convicted of criminal non-support for failure to pay child support on
behalf of his 4 minor children, for which he had previously been court ordered to support. The
evidence establishes that defendant was capable of working, was employed, and earned at
least $1,000 per month.
A single act may give rise to both civil and criminal sanctions.
A sentence of imprisonment for the failure to support one’s children as ordered by a
court does not violate the eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, §
9, of the Nebraska Constitution, both of which prohibit the infliction of “cruel and
unusual” punishment.
“To abandon one’s children to a life of poverty and reliance upon public charity is a
heinous and ignoble offense and is to be treated as such.”
We do not think the allowance for the support of defendant’s minor child bears any
resemblance whatever to a debt, and therefore the constitution does not forbid
imprisonment for the defendant’s refusal to obey the order of the court. (citing
Fussell v. State, 102 Neb. 117, 166 N.W. 197 (1918))
State v. Yelli, 247 Neb. 785, 530 N.W.2d 250 (1995)
This case reminds us of the clear distinction between the standards of proof in civil vs.
criminal cases. The burden of establishing a paternity judgment is lower than for that of
establishing elements of a criminal conviction. Don’t assume you can prove paternity in a
criminal case by introducing the record of the paternity judgment.
Both federal and state due process dictate that an indigent defendant in a stateassisted
civil paternity action has the right to the services of appointed counsel.
Where a record is silent as to a defendant’s opportunity for counsel, an appellate
court may not presume that such rights were respected.
- 44 -