Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Jessen v. Line, 16 Neb. App. 197, 742 N.W.2d 30 (2007)
Facts: Apparently wealthy businessman father plays “hide the ball” with his financial records,
preventing mother from ever seeing them, despite 3 court orders. The court of appeals scolds
both sides for not resolving that issue using the “persuasive powers” of the trial court.
[A temporary child] support order was merely an interlocutory order from which no
appeal could be taken.
The fact that the initial [temporary] child support order was interlocutory militates in
favor of making the final order retroactive
Rickus v. Rickus, 183 Neb. 140, 158 N. W. 2d 540 (1969)
[T]emporary orders in the district court allowing alimony, child support, etc.,
terminate with the rendition of a final decree of divorce or the overruling of a motion
for new trial if one be filed. Hall v. Hall, 176 Neb. 555, 126 N. W. 2d 839
Note: All temporary orders are subject to vacation/termination by court order if the parties
do not timely follow up with a final, permanent order of support. If a temporary order ends
up on the dismissal docket, and dismissed under the case progression standards, the
parties will have to start over again. When paternity is involved, the termination of the case
terminates the finding of paternity, forcing the child support interests to “start from scratch”
with a new complaint for paternity and support.
Termination of Parental Rights
This treatise does not attempt to provide an exhaustive treatment on the issue of
termination of parental rights. However, often times families affected by child support orders we
are charged with enforcing end up in juvenile court with allegations of abuse, neglect, or
abandonment. Particularly with the issue of child abandonment our appellate courts seem to be
taking a harder line as to what constitutes grounds for termination of parental rights. I will list
below a few appellate cases that address these issues and set guidelines for when a parent
should have their parental rights and child support responsibilities terminated.
In re Interest of Angelica L. & Daniel L., 277 Neb. 984, 767 N.W.2d 74 (2009)
The jurisdiction of the State in juvenile adjudication cases arises out of the power
every sovereignty possesses as parens patriae to every child within its borders to
determine the status and custody that will best meet the child’s needs and wants.
a court may not properly deprive a parent of the custody of his or her minor child
unless the State affirmatively establishes that such parent is unfit to perform the duties
imposed by the relationship, or has forfeited that right.
The fact that a child has been placed outside the home for 15 or more of the most
recent 22 months does not demonstrate parental unfitness. The placement of a child
outside the home for 15 or more of the most recent 22 months under Neb. Rev. Stat. §
43-292(7) (Reissue 2008) merely provides a guideline for what would be a reasonable
time for parents to rehabilitate themselves to a minimum level of fitness.
Regardless of the length of time a child is placed outside the home, it is always the
State’s burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit and
that the child’s best interests are served by his or her continued removal from parental
custody.
The “best interests” standard is subject to the overriding presumption that the
relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected and that the best
- 178 -