Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
If trial evidence establishes a joint physical custody arrangement, courts will so<br />
construe it, regardless of how prior decrees or court orders have characterized the<br />
arrangement.<br />
When the parent owing child support has physical custody of the minor children at<br />
least 38% of the time, the parties have joint physical custody, and the joint<br />
physical custody worksheet (worksheet 3) should be used in setting child support.<br />
See § 4-212 of the <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines<br />
Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 276 Neb. 653, 756 N.W.2d 522 (2008)<br />
In re Interest of Eric O. & Shane O., 9 Neb. App. 676, 617 N.W.2d 824 (2000)<br />
[But also see Cesar C. v. Alicia L., 281 Neb. 979, 800 N.W.2d 249 (July 2011) for a<br />
limitation on this doctrine]<br />
“Parental Preference Doctrine and Fitness or Forfeiture”<br />
The father’s natural right to the custody of his children trumps the interest of a<br />
grandparent to the parent-child relationship and the preferences of the child. This is<br />
true even when the father has been previously absent from the child’s life and owes<br />
thousands of dollars in back child support, and even when the child had been living<br />
with the maternal grandparents and the child’s mother, prior to the mother’s death.<br />
<strong>Nebraska</strong> law creates a presumption in favor of child custody with a<br />
biological parent as against an unrelated third party.<br />
Although the question present in every child custody case is the best interests of the<br />
child, a court cannot overlook or disregard that the best interests standard is subject<br />
to the overriding recognition that the relationship between parent and child is<br />
constitutionally protected.<br />
The courts may not properly deprive a parent of the custody of a minor child unless it<br />
is affirmatively shown that such parent is unfit to perform the duties imposed by<br />
the relationship or has forfeited that right.<br />
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that due process of law requires a parent to be<br />
granted a hearing on his or her fitness as a parent before being deprived of custody.<br />
And the right of a parent to the care, custody, and management of his or her children<br />
is considered one of the most basic rights of man.<br />
Parental preference means that absent unfitness or forfeiture, the natural parent<br />
prevails against an unrelated person in a custody dispute. … While appellate courts<br />
have often spoken of a natural parent’s superior rights as against those of an<br />
“unrelated” person in various articulations of the parental preference doctrine, this is<br />
somewhat misstated. The reality is that anyone other than a natural parent is<br />
“unrelated,” even though the person seeking custody may be family.<br />
Gartner v. Hume, 12 Neb. App. 741, 686 N.W.2d 58 (2004)<br />
<strong>Child</strong> Custody. To prevail on a motion to remove a minor child to another jurisdiction,<br />
the custodial parent must first satisfy the court that he or she has a legitimate reason<br />
for leaving the state. After clearing that threshold, the custodial parent must next<br />
demonstrate that it is in the child’s best interests to continue living with him or her.<br />
[See also the Removal of Minor <strong>Child</strong> from <strong>Nebraska</strong> section.]<br />
Grange v. Grange, 15 Neb. App. 297, 725 N.W.2d 853 (2006)<br />
Ordinarily, custody of a minor child will not be modified unless there has been a<br />
material change in circumstances showing that the custodial parent is unfit or that<br />
- 47 -