Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
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 -