04.04.2014 Views

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Moore v. Bauer, 11 Neb. App. 572, 657 N.W.2d 25 (2003)<br />

Under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for a trial court to consider<br />

subsequently born children of a party when determining child support. This<br />

determination is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court. The party requesting a<br />

deviation from the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines based upon an obligation to<br />

support offspring of a subsequent relationship bears the burden of providing<br />

evidence regarding the obligation, including the income of the other parent of the<br />

child or children of the subsequent relationship.<br />

See also Brooks v. Brooks, 261 Neb. 289, 622 N.W.2d 670 (2001).<br />

Morrill <strong>County</strong> v. Darsaklis, 7 Neb. App. 489, 584 N.W.2d 36 (1998)<br />

A parent is required to provide his or her child with the basic necessities of life. Both<br />

parents have a duty to support their minor children, and the amount of child support<br />

awarded is a function of the status, character, and situation of the parties.<br />

The primary consideration in determining the level of child support payments is the<br />

best interests of the child.<br />

<strong>Nebraska</strong> courts have consistently examined a parent’s earning capacity, as well as<br />

actual wages, to determine child support. This is particularly apposite when a parent<br />

receives valuable benefits which are not paid as cash, and also when a parent<br />

unjustifiably chooses to be underemployed or unemployed. See, also, <strong>Nebraska</strong><br />

<strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines, paragraph C(5), which allows deviation from application of<br />

the guidelines if application of them would result in an unjust or inappropriate result.<br />

Patton v. Patton, 20 Neb. App. 51, ___ N.W.2d ___ (July 2012)<br />

Held: Even if the parties don’t call their parenting plan “joint physical custody”, if dad has the<br />

children 160 days a year that is what it is, and he is entitled to use the joint custody worksheet.<br />

An appellate court’s review in an action for dissolution of marriage is de novo on the<br />

record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge.<br />

This standard of review applies to the trial court’s determinations regarding custody,<br />

child support, division of property, alimony, and attorney fees.<br />

Interpretation of the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines presents a question of law,<br />

regarding which an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of<br />

the determination reached by the court below.<br />

The <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines relative to joint physical custody provide that<br />

a “day” shall be generally defined as including an overnight period.<br />

When a specific provision for joint physical custody is ordered and each party’s<br />

parenting time exceeds 142 days per year, it is a rebuttable presumption that<br />

support shall be calculated using the joint custody worksheet of the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong><br />

<strong>Support</strong> Guidelines.<br />

The <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines offer flexibility and guidance, with the<br />

understanding that not every child support scenario will fit neatly into the calculation<br />

structure.<br />

Although the division of property is not subject to a precise mathematical formula,<br />

the general rule is to award a spouse one-third to one-half of the marital estate, the<br />

polestar being fairness and reasonableness as determined by the facts of each<br />

case.<br />

- 86 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!