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.
unchallenged, the results of genetic testing were not relevant to any issue properly<br />
raised in the case and the district court should not have ordered or considered<br />
genetic testing.<br />
Cross v. Perreten, 257 Neb. 776, 600 N.W. 2d 780 (1999)<br />
Paternity proceedings “are purely statutory and the courts can try such issues and<br />
make such orders, in them, as the statute contemplates and none other.”<br />
Relief in paternity actions is limited to that provided in the statutes<br />
The statutory framework allows either the mother, the father, a guardian or next<br />
friend, or the State to file suit for the determination of paternity<br />
In an action to establish paternity, issues of custody and visitation rights are<br />
incidental to the primary cause of action and fall within the general equity jurisdiction<br />
of the district court. However, nothing in the paternity statutes permits a trial court to<br />
consider issues unrelated to the question of paternity and the immediate incidents<br />
thereto.<br />
DeVaux v. DeVaux II, 245 Neb. 611, 514 N.W.2d 640 (1994)<br />
Facts: <strong>Child</strong> born during marriage. Husband and wife then divorce, with wife awarded custody<br />
and husband ordered to pay child support. Later, Mother filed an application to modify her<br />
dissolution decree to reflect that her former husband was not the father of her minor child. Bio<br />
dad of child (Mother’s new husband) intervened in the modification action filed by Mom.<br />
Former husband objected to modification, alleging res judicata and unclean, um, hands on the<br />
part of former wife. The district court granted the modification, and the former husband<br />
appealed. Note: This case predates the enactment of <strong>Nebraska</strong>’s Disestablishment law. Se<br />
also Alicia C. v. Jeremy C., (February 2012)<br />
Paternity findings in a dissolution decree are a final judgment and are res judicata.<br />
We hold that under the doctrine of res judicata, a finding of paternity in a dissolution<br />
decree precludes the parties to the decree from relitigating paternity.<br />
We express no opinion regarding [the biological father’s] right or ability to maintain a<br />
paternity action. (See State on Behalf of Hopkins v. Batt, 253 Neb. 852, 573 N.W.2d<br />
425 (1998)<br />
A fundamental fact necessary to sustain an order of child support is paternity by the<br />
man judicially obligated to pay such support. (citation omitted)<br />
[P]aternity is not based on the best interests of the child. The fact that child<br />
custody may be modified does not permit paternity findings to be disturbed.<br />
Under §25-2001, a district court has the power to vacate or modify its own judgment<br />
after term for one of nine reasons enumerated in the statute. The only one of these<br />
reasons applicable to [the mother’s] claim is a motion for new trial based on newly<br />
discovered evidence. [The mother] is not entitled to relief under §25-2001 because<br />
she is out of time; claims of newly discovered evidence must be filed within 1 year of<br />
the final judgment. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §25-1145 (Reissue 1989-since repealed).<br />
However… §25-2001 is not the exclusive remedy for vacating or modifying a<br />
judgment after term. Section 25-2001 is concurrent with the courts’ independent<br />
equity jurisdiction. In order to make a sufficient showing for a new trial on the<br />
grounds of newly discovered evidence, the proof in support thereof must show that<br />
such evidence is now available which neither the litigant nor counsel could have<br />
discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence… [The mother’s] application fails<br />
to allege that the results of the blood tests could not have been discovered with the<br />
exercise of reasonable diligence. [The mother] was aware of her extramarital sexual<br />
relations. These sexual relations provided her with “some reason to awaken inquiry”<br />
- 148 -