23.06.2014 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.

If applicable, earning capacity may be considered in lieu of a parent’s actual,<br />

present income and may include factors such as work history, education,<br />

occupational skills, and job opportunities.<br />

<strong>Child</strong> support may be based on a parent’s earning capacity when a parent voluntarily<br />

leaves employment and a reduction in that parent’s support obligation would<br />

seriously impair the needs of the children<br />

Earning capacity may be used as a basis for an initial determination of child support<br />

under the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines where evidence is presented that the<br />

parent is capable of realizing such capacity through reasonable effort.<br />

Collins v. Collins, 19 Neb. App. 529, 808 N.W.2d 905 (Feb. 2012)<br />

Under the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines, if applicable, earning capacity may be<br />

considered in lieu of a parent's actual, present income and may include factors such<br />

as work history, education, occupational skills, and job opportunities.<br />

In the initial determination of child support, earning capacity may be used where<br />

evidence is presented that the parent is capable of realizing such capacity through<br />

reasonable effort.<br />

The party seeking the modification has the burden to produce sufficient proof that a<br />

material change of circumstances has occurred that warrants a modification.<br />

For a court to modify child support, the material change of circumstances must exist<br />

at the time of the modification trial.<br />

Temporary unemployment is not a material change of circumstances.<br />

Crawford v. Crawford, 263 Neb. 37, 263 Neb. 37 (2002)<br />

Modification of a dissolution decree and the amount of child support are matters<br />

entrusted to the trial court’s discretion, and although the issue on appeal is reviewed<br />

de novo on the record, the decision of the trial court will be affirmed absent an<br />

abuse of discretion<br />

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

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

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

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

In considering whether to deviate from the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines<br />

based on an order of support for a subsequent child, the trial court must have<br />

before it the calculations and any worksheets used to determine the child support<br />

order for the subsequent child.<br />

Double Dipping – If (the obligor in a modification action) was able to use his original<br />

support obligation to decrease the amount of his subsequent support obligation to<br />

(his later born child), it would be inequitable to allow him to turn around and use that<br />

subsequent award as the basis for decreasing the original obligation. It would not be<br />

in the best interests of the children to permit (the obligor) to effectively “play one<br />

family against the other” in order to decrease his child support obligation to both.<br />

Erica J. v. Dewitt, 265 Neb. 728, 659 N.W.2d 315 (2003)<br />

Facts: District court modified child support, but did not do so retro to the date of the filing of the<br />

complaint to modify. State appealed, arguing that the court should have back dated the upward<br />

modification. Held: District court acted within its discretion in not back dating modification.<br />

[T]he delays (in bringing the modification action to trial) do not appear to be the fault<br />

of any one individual. We conclude that the district court’s determination to make the<br />

- 127 -

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!