Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Note: In July 2008 the Federal Child Support Regulations were changed to define the term
“reasonable in cost” as it pertains to the cost of a parent paying for dependent health
insurance, or in the alternative, being ordered to pay “Cash Medical Support” for his or her
minor child(ren). This new definition at last puts to rest much confusion about just what is a
reasonable cost for dependent health insurance. See (45 CFR 303.31(a)(3)) for the federal
definition.
Changes to Nebraska’s child support guidelines effective September 30, 2009 reflect these
updated federal definitions. Nebraska’s Unicameral passed LB 288 (codified at § 42-369),
effective September 30, 2009. The law incorporates the concept of “Cash Medical Support”
into our child support law. Cash Medical Support will have to be addressed, and likely ordered to
be paid by the parent obligated to pay child support in all IV-D child support cases where the
obligated parent is unable due to financial limitations or the lack of access to dependent
health insurance to provide dependent health insurance for his or her minor child(ren).
Note: A court may satisfy the federal requirement of Cash Medical by merely ordering the
parent to share in a % of the uncovered medical expenses of the minor child, or the court can
choose to order the parent to pay 3% of the parent’s gross monthly income. If a dollar figure
is set, cash medical support will be paid like child support, through income withholding
where possible, to the Nebraska Child Support Payment Center.
Under Nebraska law, “Cash medical support or the cost of private health insurance is
considered reasonable in cost if the cost to the party responsible for providing medical
support does not exceed three percent of his or her gross income. In applying the threepercent
standard, the cost is the cost of adding the children to existing health care coverage
or the difference between self-only and family health care coverage. Cash medical support
payments shall not be ordered if, at the time that the order is issued or modified, the
responsible party’s income is or such expense would reduce the responsible party’s net
income below the basic subsistence limitation provided in Nebraska Court Rule section 4-
218.”
Brandt v. Brandt, 227 Neb. 325, 327, 417 N.W.2d 339, 341 (1988), overruled on other
grounds, Druba v. Druba, 238 Neb. 279, 470 N.W.2d 176 (1991).
A judge may not satisfy his duty to act equitably toward all concerned, i.e., the
parties and the children, by blindly following suggested guidelines.
Brockman v. Brockman, 264 Neb. 106, 646 N.W.2d 594 (2002)
[F]ood stamps are means-tested public assistance benefits that are excluded from
income pursuant to [§ 4-204] of the Guidelines.
Brooks v. Brooks, 261 Neb. 289, 622 N.W.2d 670 (2001)
The guidelines offer flexibility and guidance, with the understanding that not every
child support scenario will fit neatly into the calculation structure.
There is no precise mathematical formula applicable to situations where a court
deviates from the guidelines when children from subsequent relationships are
involved. Subsequent familial relationships vary widely from case to case.
When a deviation from the guidelines is appropriate, the trial court should
consider both parents’ support obligations to all children involved in the
relationships. In considering the obligation to those subsequent children, the trial
- 82 -