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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

[A]n upward revision of the guidelines constitutes a material change of<br />

circumstances that can warrant upward modification of a parent’s child support<br />

obligation, independent of changes in that parent’s income.<br />

Snyder v. Chandler, No. A-00-460 (Not designated for permanent publication, 2001)<br />

[§ 4-218] prohibits the setting of child support payments which will reduce a parent’s net<br />

monthly income below a certain amount and further provides that the $50 minimum<br />

payment provided for in [§ 4-209] is permissive and within the trial court’s discretion. See<br />

Neb. Rev. Stat. §49-802(1)<br />

State v. Oglesby, 244 Neb. 880, 510 N.W.2d 53 (1994)<br />

Facts: Mother got pregnant out of wedlock in 1976. <strong>Child</strong> born in 1977 and had little contact<br />

with bio father. Mother did not want bio father in the child’s life. Nearly thirteen years later<br />

mother went on state assistance and state filed paternity action. Father shown to be bio dad<br />

and trial court sets support in strict compliance with child support guidelines, giving no<br />

consideration to the fact that father was supporting his family of 5 on just his paychecks. Held:<br />

strict compliance with child support guidelines would be inequitable under the facts of this case.<br />

… the support ordered by the court in this case gives no consideration at all to the<br />

present children, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in not first<br />

determining that, under the particular facts of this case, the strict application of the<br />

guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate, as set out in the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong><br />

<strong>Support</strong> Guidelines, paragraph C(5).<br />

State on Behalf of Martinez v. Martinez-Ibarra, 281 Neb. 547, 797 N.W.2d 222 (May<br />

2011)<br />

The child support guidelines do not allow for a deduction on Worksheet #1 for cash<br />

medical support. But see changes to the guidelines effective 09/01/11, that do!<br />

The requirement that the custodial parent pay the first $480 of nonreimbursed<br />

medical expenses per year does not serve to reduce the amount of cash medical<br />

support ordered.<br />

Stuczynski v. Stuczynski, 238 Neb. 368, 471 N.W.2d 122 (1991)<br />

The child support guidelines set out a rebuttable presumption of a fair and equitable<br />

child support order.<br />

Wilkins v. Wilkins, 269 Neb. 937, 697 N.W.2d 280 (2005)<br />

The twists and turns in the facts of this case are far too long to repeat here.<br />

Any deviation from the guidelines must take into consideration the best interests<br />

of the children.<br />

The party requesting a deviation from the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines based<br />

upon an obligation to support offspring of a subsequent relationship bears the<br />

burden of providing evidence regarding the obligation, including the income of the<br />

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

Whether a child support order should be retroactive is entrusted to the discretion of<br />

the trial court and will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.<br />

Willcock v. Willcock, 12 Neb. App. 422, 675 N.W.2d 721 (2004)<br />

- 88 -

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!