Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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



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

(2) notify the nonregistering party of the right to a determination of which is the controlling order; (3) state that the procedures provided in subsection (b) of this section apply to the determination of which is the controlling order; and (4) state that failure to contest the validity or enforcement of the order alleged to be the controlling order in a timely manner may result in confirmation that the order is the controlling order. (d) Upon registration of an income withholding order for enforcement, the registering tribunal shall notify the obligor's employer pursuant to the Income Withholding for Child Support Act or sections 42-347 to 42-381. Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 40; Laws 1997, LB 727, § 16; Laws 2003, LB 148, § 79. § 42-741 Procedure to contest validity or enforcement of registered order. (a) A nonregistering party seeking to contest the validity or enforcement of a registered order in this state shall request a hearing within twenty days after notice of the registration. The nonregistering party may seek to vacate the registration, to assert any defense to an allegation of noncompliance with the registered order, or to contest the remedies being sought or the amount of any alleged arrearages pursuant to section 42-742. (b) If the nonregistering party fails to contest the validity or enforcement of the registered order in a timely manner, the order is confirmed by operation of law. If a nonregistering party requests a hearing to contest the validity or enforcement of the registered order, the registering tribunal shall schedule the matter for hearing and give notice to the parties of the date, time, and place of the hearing. Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 41 § 42-742 Contest of registration or enforcement. (a) A party contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered order or seeking to vacate the registration has the burden of proving one or more of the following defenses: (1) the issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party; (2) the order was obtained by fraud; (3) the order has been vacated, suspended, or modified by a later order; (4) the issuing tribunal has stayed the order pending appeal; (5) there is a defense under the law of this state to the remedy sought; (6) full or partial payment has been made; (7) the statute of limitation under section 42-739 precludes enforcement of some or all of the alleged arrearages; or (8) the alleged controlling order is not the controlling order. (b) If a party presents evidence establishing a full or partial defense under subsection (a) of this section, a tribunal shall stay enforcement of the registered order, continue the proceeding to permit production of additional relevant evidence, and issue other appropriate orders. An uncontested portion of the registered order may be enforced by all remedies available under the law of this state. (c) If the contesting party does not establish a defense under such subsection to the validity or enforcement of the order, the registering tribunal shall issue an order confirming the order. Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 42; Laws 2003, LB 148, § 80 § 42-743 Confirmed order. . Confirmation of a registered order, whether by operation of law or after notice and hearing, precludes further contest of the order with respect to any matter that could have been asserted at the time of registration. - 184 -
Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 43 § 42-745 Effect of registration for modification. A tribunal of this state may enforce a child support order of another state registered for purposes of modification, in the same manner as if the order had been issued by a tribunal of this state, but the registered order shall be modified only if the requirements of section 42-746, 42-747.01, or 42-747.03 have been met. Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 45; Laws 2003, LB 148, § 81. Groseth v. Groseth, 257 Neb. 525, 600 N.W.2d 159 (1999) Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §42-709(a), an issuing state loses continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support provisions of a divorce decree once both parents and all their children move away from that state. a responding state acquires jurisdiction to modify the child support provisions of a foreign decree once the following three conditions are met: (1) Both the parents and the children moved away from the issuing state; (2) one of the parents, who is a nonresident of the responding state, seeks modification in the responding state; and (3) the other parent becomes subject to the personal jurisdiction of the responding state. Hamilton v. Foster, 260 Neb. 887, 620 N.W.2d 103 (2000) UIFSA's provisions may only be used to enforce an existing support order, establish a support order where no order has previously been established, or modify an existing support order. See § § 42-714 and 42-733. Lamb v. Lamb, 14 Neb. App. 337, 707 N.W.2d 423 (2005) The silence of the Lambs when this case was decided must have been deafening… UCCJEA ≠ UIFSA The modification of another state’s child support order must be addressed under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§42-701 to 42- 751 (Reissue 2004). Trogdon v. Trogdon, 18 Neb. App. 313, 780 N.W.2d 45 (2010) Facts: Parties divorced in California. Mom and child later move to Nebraska and Dad moves to Washington State. Years later Mom registers the California divorce in her home state of Nebraska, and seeks to enforce against Dad in Washington. Dad is mailed a copy of the registration by the clerk of district court, and files a written objection on his own with the court, disputing the amount of alleged arrears, but not the court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over him. Two months later, in preparation for the evidentiary hearing on his objection, he hires an attorney, who files an objection, claiming the Nebraska court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. The district court rules that it did have jurisdiction. He later appeals. Held: when the father filed his objection to the registration, he asked the court to address the merits of the cause of action. This simple fact gave the Nebraska court jurisdiction over him. Personal jurisdiction is the power of a tribunal to subject and bind a particular entity to its decisions. Hunt v. Trackwell, 262 Neb. 688, 635 N.W.2d 106 (2001). Lack of personal jurisdiction may be waived and such jurisdiction conferred by the conduct of the parties. Id. For example, a party that files an answer generally denying the allegations of a petition invokes the court’s power on an issue other than personal jurisdiction and confers on the court personal jurisdiction. - 185 -
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 and 144: Under certain circumstances, an ame
Page 145 and 146: A party seeking to modify a dissolu
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: the following three conditions are
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?