Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

A private agreement between parents that would deprive a child of support from one
parent contravenes the public policy of this. State.
[B]ecause the right to support belonged to [the child], any. Agreement made or
actions taken by [the mother] would not be the. Basis for equitable estoppel in this
paternity and child support action brought by the State on the child’s behalf.
Even though the State fashioned the action as one brought on behalf of both the
mother and the child, at least with regard to issues of support, this action is one
brought on behalf of the child. To secure her right to support. Therefore, whether or
not the. Mother should be equitably estopped from seeking any sort of relief for
herself, the State was not estopped from seeking support on the child’s behalf in this
action.
State on behalf of L.L.B. v. Hill, 268 Neb. 355, 682 N.W.2d 709 (2004)
To be entitled to equitable relief from a judgment, a party must show that the
situation is not due to his or her fault, neglect, or.carelessness.
Here, Hill does not deny that he received notice of the 1996.petition to establish
paternity and the State’s motion for DNA. Testing. Instead of having the testing
done, he failed to appear, resulting in a default judgment. …Even though he firmly
believed. That he was not the child’s father, he did nothing until the State.
Commenced contempt proceedings in 2002, almost 5 years after. The dismissal of
his motion to vacate in term. It was Hill’s. inexcusable lack of diligence which led
to the accumulation of the arrearages, and as a result, equity will not aid him in
vacating those arrearages.
State on Behalf of J. R. v. Mendoza, 240 Neb. 149, 481 N.W.2d 165 (1992)
(Discussed in more detail elsewhere in this outline) Is a party who signs and files a
sworn acknowledgment of paternity with the department of vital statistics for
purposes of obtaining a new birth certificate conclusively established as the child’s
“legal father?” “[W]e decline to give such an acknowledgment conclusive effect.”
“[C]oncerns regarding the stigma of illegitimacy should not outweigh the primary
purposes of the filiation statutes: identifying the biological fathers of children born out
of wedlock and imposing on them an obligation of support.”
Thompson v. Thompson, 18 Neb.App. 363, 782 N.W.2d 607 (2010)
An obligor parent is entitled to a credit against his or her current child support
obligation for payments made by the Department of Veterans Affairs to the child as a
result of the obligor parent's disability, in the absence of circumstances making the
allowance of such a credit inequitable.
Truman v. Truman, 256 Neb. 628, 591 N.W.2d 81 (1999)
The doctrine of equitable estoppel could operate to excuse the payment of accrued
child support under appropriate factual circumstances
Weaver v. Compton III, 8 Neb. App. 961,605 N.W.2d 478 (2000)
It is not error to credit an obligated parent’s child support balance sheet with cash
payments and non-monetary assets (a car) sent to the custodial parent directly by
the obligated parent’s relatives, which payments were intended for use in the
support of the minor child.
Welch v. Welch, Jr., 246 Neb. 435, 519 N.W.2d 262 (1994)
- 74 -