Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

force of res judicata; modification will be considered only when there has been a
change in circumstances since the last request for modification. But if there has
been no change, modification is not justified, because the request is essentially the
same as the last request.
[A]ny change in circumstances occurring since the first [unsuccessful] modification
proceeding should have been compared to the original decree when determining
whether the change in circumstances was a material and substantial change
warranting modification. Any changes in … circumstances that occurred prior to the
first modification proceeding are settled, and the doctrine of res judicata prevents the
district court from considering any change based on those circumstances.
Muller v. Muller, 3 Neb. App. 159, 524 N.W.2d 78 (1994)
Knaub v. Knaub, 245 Neb. 172, 512 N.W.2d 124 (1994)
Modification of the amount of child support payments is an issue entrusted to the
discretion of the trial court, and although, on appeal, the issue is reviewed de novo
on the record, the decision of the trial court will be affirmed absent an abuse of
discretion.
A party seeking to modify child support must show a material change in
circumstances which has occurred subsequent to the entry of the original order or
previous modification and was not contemplated when the most recent support
order was entered.
Among the factors to be considered in determining whether a material change in
circumstances has occurred are changes in the financial position of the obligor
parent, the needs of the children, good or bad faith motive of the obligor parent in
sustaining a reduction in income, and whether the change is temporary or
permanent.
The paramount concern and question in determining child support is the best
interests of the child.
Murphy v. Murphy, 17 Neb. App. 279 (2008)
Facts: Father was employed for $70,000 a year at time of divorce. He was also on
disciplinary probation and “skating on thin ice” at that time. Within a year he got into more
trouble at work and resigned his job in the face of being fired. He could not find other
employment paying more than $35,000 per year, so filed to modify his child support and
alimony. The District court sided with father, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
Matthew was clearly involved in “employee misconduct”. [A] request to modify
child support will be denied if the change in financial circumstances is due to fault or
voluntary wastage or dissipation of one’s talents and assets. … We reverse and
vacate the district court’s downward modification of Matthew’s child support and
alimony obligation on the ground of Matthew’s reduced earnings.
Noonan v. Noonan, 261 Neb. 552, 624 N.W.2d 314 (2001);
Moore v. Bauer, 11 Neb. App. 572, 657 N.W.2d 25 (2003)
Modification of child support payments is entrusted to the trial court’s discretion, and
although, on appeal, the issue is reviewed de novo on the record, the decision of the
trial court will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
The rule, absent equities to the contrary, should generally be that the modification
of a child support order should be applied retroactively to the first day of the
month following the filing date of the application for modification.
- 132 -