Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$F:\Kevin\2007 Case Lists\Currently on web page\District Judges ...$



$\\orion\ChildSupport\Kevin\2007 Case Lists\Currently on web page ...$

Voichoskie v. Voichoskie, 215 Neb. 775, 340 N.W.2d 442 (1983) ‘“Whenever a party, who, as actor, seeks to set the judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, or good faith, or other equitable principle, in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right, or to award him any remedy.” Citing Brown v. Alron, Inc., 223 Neb. 1, 7, 388 N.W.2d 67, 72 (1986). A court should not be automatically precluded from entertaining an application to modify a decree where the applicant is in arrears. A parent who is in arrears but is otherwise entitled to a modification of monthly support payments should not be denied relief under the ‘clean hands’ doctrine if the court is satisfied that he has a valid excuse for not meeting his required payments in full, e.g., financial inability to pay.” However: where the evidence discloses that a party is in fact able to pay past due support, such that he could be or has been found in contempt for the failure to pay, he will be barred by the clean hands doctrine from requesting a modification of the decree Wagner v. Wagner, 262 Neb. 924, 636 N.W.2d 879 (2001) A divorce decree does not require a parent to remain in the same employment, and child support may be calculated based on actual income when a career change is made in good faith. whether the decision to leave employment was made in good faith is only one factor to be considered, and an award of child support could be based on a parent’s earning capacity even when the parent acted in good faith. However, while child support may be based on a parent’s earning capacity when a parent voluntarily leaves a higher paying job for lower paying employment, and a reduction in the amount of that parent’s support obligation would seriously impair the needs of the children, support may be based on a lower rate of income for the obligated parent when he changes jobs in good faith, and there is no evidence that the needs of the minor children will be adversely affected by the reduction in earnings. Wilson v. Wilson, 19 Neb. App. 103, 803 N.W.2d 520 (July 2011) Facts: Parties divorced Oct. 2009. Decree split marital property and required Wife to vacate marital residence by 10-31-11. No appeal taken. Wife failed to vacate and months later Husband filed action ‘to determine amounts due under decree.’ He claimed $30,000 in extra costs he incurred due to Wife not moving out. The DCt sustained his motion and in addition found Wife in contempt for failure to vacate. Wife appealed, claiming the court in effect modified the terms of the decree’s property settlement agreement without having filed for a modification. Ct. of Appeals agreed, and reversed that portion of the order. It found that there was no ambiguity or lack of clarity concerning what was actually ordered in the decree, and accordingly there was nothing for the court to clarify. Held: Husband must file complaint to modify if he doesn’t like the terms of the decree. He cannot modify the decree by a back door approach. A trial court retains jurisdiction to determine the amounts due for alimony and child support and to enforce its prior judgment, and included in that power to enforce its judgment is power to determine any amounts due under the initial decree. - 138 -
A party seeking to modify a dissolution decree must show a material change of circumstances which occurred subsequent to the entry of the original decree or a previous modification which was not contemplated when the prior order was entered. Modifying the amounts awarded to a parent in the decree, without following the appropriate procedures for bringing and resolving an application to modify the decree, was not appropriate. Multiple Families Emery v. Moffett, 269 Neb. 867, 697 N.W.2d 249 (2005) There is no precise mathematical formula for calculation child support when subsequent children are involved; the calculation is left to the discretion of the court as long as the court considers the obligations to both families and the income of the other parent of the subsequent children. Parenting Act of 2008 The <strong>Nebraska</strong> bar association has produced a PDF brochure on the 2008 Parenting Act. It is available at: www.nebar.com/pdfs/education/2008/bro.parent-act010308.pdf It is crucial for child support IV-D attorneys to be aware that this act does NOT normally affect the work we do. LB 554, which became the Parenting Act, states in section 5 (2) that “A county attorney or authorized attorney shall not participate in the development of or court review of a parenting plan under the Parenting Act.” However… State ex rel. Amanda M. v. Justin T., 279 Neb. 273, 777 N.W.2d 565 (Jan. 2010) The Parenting Act may be utilized in state initiated paternity cases when both parents are parties to the paternity or child support action. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2924 (2). When the issue of custody is raised in a state initiated paternity/child support case, the district court is required to develop a parenting plan which “shall serve the best interests of the child.” Before awarding parents joint custody of a minor child, due process requires that the trial court hold a hearing on the issue. When a court has determined that joint physical custody is, or may be, in a child’s best interests but neither party has requested joint custody, the court must give the parties an opportunity to present evidence on the issue before imposing joint custody. - 139 -
Page 1 and 2:
Have a Wonderful Summer! Child Supp
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents:* * (accessible v
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents (continued): Mult
Page 7 and 8:
A Note for Legal Practitioners: Mem
Page 9 and 10:
Overview/ IV-D Attorney Duty Gangwi
Page 11 and 12:
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-105(2) (Reissu
Page 13 and 14:
See Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248
Page 15 and 16:
their attorney of record and, excep
Page 17 and 18:
State ex rel. Lemon v. Gale, 272 Ne
Page 19 and 20:
disobedience as an essential elemen
Page 21 and 22:
student loan that the noncustodial
Page 23 and 24:
having jurisdiction to compel the s
Page 25 and 26:
Drew on Behalf of Reed v. Reed, 16
Page 27 and 28:
income, is to be considered in dete
Page 29 and 30:
§ 48-802 - Statutes, General Rules
Page 31 and 32:
from arriving on the scene, either
Page 33 and 34:
In equity cases trial judges should
Page 35 and 36:
Similarly, a party who does more th
Page 37 and 38:
Common Law Marriages States that au
Page 39 and 40:
Constitutional Issues/ Statutory In
Page 41 and 42:
Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, 101
Page 43 and 44:
In re Interest of Thomas M., 282 Ne
Page 45 and 46:
See Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kre
Page 47 and 48:
Because a conditional commitment is
Page 49 and 50:
obligation when he currently has an
Page 51 and 52:
An order modifying child custody wh
Page 53 and 54:
Haynes v. Haynes, 205 Neb. 35, 286
Page 55 and 56:
Stuhr v. Stuhr, 240 Neb. 239, 481 N
Page 57 and 58:
By failing to take the genetic test
Page 59 and 60:
State on behalf of L.L.B. v. Hill,
Page 61 and 62:
Due Process Conn v. Conn, 13 Neb. A
Page 63 and 64:
or court order of emancipation or a
Page 65 and 66:
Henderson v. Henderson, 264 Neb. 91
Page 67 and 68:
they have income. There is no floor
Page 69 and 70:
Lainson v. Lainson, 219 Neb. 170, 3
Page 71 and 72:
Millatmal v. Millatmal, 272 Neb. 45
Page 73 and 74:
24A Am. Jur. 2d Divorce and Separat
Page 75 and 76:
[T]he fact that [the custodial pare
Page 77 and 78:
The same principles that apply with
Page 79 and 80:
“[C]oncerns regarding the stigma
Page 81 and 82:
(a) The interpretation of the suppo
Page 83 and 84:
make the appointment. In other case
Page 85 and 86:
Guidelines Issues (Including suffic
Page 87 and 88:
Note: In July 2008 the Federal Chil
Page 89 and 90:
Erica J. v. Dewitt, 265 Neb. 728, 6
Page 91 and 92:
Morrill County v. Darsaklis, 7 Neb.
Page 93 and 94: Any deviation from the guidelines m
Page 95 and 96: to also pay reimbursement for reaso
Page 97 and 98: or law of another state substantial
Page 99 and 100: §43-1711 Income, defined. Income s
Page 101 and 102: Simpson v. Simpson, 275 Neb. 152, 7
Page 103 and 104: §42-364.09. Child support; withhol
Page 105 and 106: §43-1709. Employer or other payor,
Page 107 and 108: (6) That the employer or other payo
Page 109 and 110: income withholding for current supp
Page 111 and 112: Title IV-D Division of the Departme
Page 113 and 114: Held: The state was acting beyond i
Page 115 and 116: (3) Any juvenile…whose parent, gu
Page 117 and 118: proceeding or a new action. Since t
Page 119 and 120: State, Dept. of Social Services v.
Page 121 and 122: amount equal to the support due and
Page 123 and 124: Source: Laws 1975, LB 212, § 8; La
Page 125 and 126: The second is used in aid of an exe
Page 127 and 128: Halsted v. Halsted, 169 Neb. 325, 9
Page 129 and 130: Neb. Ct. R. § 4-217 Modification.
Page 131 and 132: she had sufficient resources to pro
Page 133 and 134: If applicable, earning capacity may
Page 135 and 136: Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N
Page 137 and 138: A district court may modify a regis
Page 139 and 140: Peter v. Peter, 262 Neb. 1017, 637
Page 141 and 142: See also: Wilkins v. Wilkins, 269 N
Page 143: Under certain circumstances, an ame
Page 147 and 148: (2)The department, through its agen
Page 149 and 150: § 43-1408.01 Notarized acknowledgm
Page 151 and 152: §43-1414. Genetic testing; procedu
Page 153 and 154: Carlson v. Bartels, 143 Neb. 680, 1
Page 155 and 156: as to the paternity of the minor ch
Page 157 and 158: Jones v. Paulson, 261 Neb. 327, 622
Page 159 and 160: in loco parentis to the child. See,
Page 161 and 162: (b) If the court orders income with
Page 163 and 164: enforcement, for example, we are fo
Page 165 and 166: ights of visitation. Later mother c
Page 167 and 168: Matchett v. Dunkle, 244 Neb. 639, 5
Page 169 and 170: Connecticut, the District of Columb
Page 171 and 172: In order to stand in loco parentis,
Page 173 and 174: Of particular interest is the requi
Page 175 and 176: Social Security (Also see Equity, E
Page 177 and 178: Calculate support this way: 1. Mom
Page 179 and 180: Spousal support, when used in the c
Page 181 and 182: punishment for sexual assault in th
Page 183 and 184: Hall v. Hall, 238 Neb. 686, 472 N.W
Page 185 and 186: interests of a child are served by
Page 187 and 188: §42-722. Private counsel. An indiv
Page 189 and 190: the following three conditions are
Page 191 and 192: Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 43 §
Page 193 and 194: Despite a basic difference in the n
Page 195 and 196:
Conrad v. Conrad, 208 Neb. 588, 304
Page 197 and 198:
Mace v. Mace, 13 Neb. App. 896, 703
Page 199 and 200:
In re Interest of Chance J., 279 Ne
Page 201 and 202:
per hour, two hour minimum. C. (1)
Page 203 and 204:
(3) If, regardless of whether payme
Page 205 and 206:
Rule 21 adopted April 16, 2008. Ren
Page 207 and 208:
Nebraska Information System (NIS):
Page 209 and 210:
web site: www.usmc-mccs.org/contact
Page 211 and 212:
FIPS FPLS IRG IV-D JUSTICE MSFIDM N
show all

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

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

Delete template?

Save as template?