Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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



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

incarceration is a possibility, does require some safeguards to prevent the erroneous deprivation of liberty. South Carolina Supreme Court reversed and remanded. ‣ To determine whether a right to counsel is required here, opposing interests and the probable value of “additional or substitute procedural safeguards” must be taken into account. ‣ An available set of procedural safeguards, if employed together, can significantly reduce the risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty. These include: (1) notice to the defendant that his “ability to pay” is a critical issue in the contempt proceeding; (2) the use of a form (or the equivalent) to elicit relevant financial information from him; (3) an opportunity at the hearing for him to respond to statements and questions about his financial status; and (4) an express finding by the court that the defendant has the ability to pay. ‣ The record indicates that Turner received neither counsel nor the benefit of alternative procedures like those we have described. He did not receive clear notice that his ability to pay would constitute the critical question in his civil contempt proceeding. No one provided him with aform (or the equivalent) designed to elicit information about his financial circumstances. The court did not find that Turner was able to pay his arrearage, but instead left the relevant “finding” section of the contempt order blank. The court nonetheless found Turner in contempt and ordered him incarcerated. Under these circumstances Turner’s incarceration violated the Due Process Clause. ‣ This decision does not address civil contempt proceedings where the underlying support payment is owed to the State. (likely in such matters the right of an indigent NCP to court appointed counsel would be guaranteed.) Duty to Support; Duration of Support §42-371.01 Duty to pay child support; termination, when; procedure; State Court Administrator; duties. (1) An obligor’s duty to pay child support for a child terminates when (a) the child reaches nineteen years of age, (b) the child marries, (c) the child dies, or (d) the child is emancipated by a court of competent jurisdiction, unless the court order for child support specifically extends child support after such circumstances. (2) The termination of child support does not relieve the obligor from the duty to pay any unpaid child support obligations owed or in arrears. (3) The obligor may provide written application for termination of a child support order when the child being supported reaches nineteen years of age, marries, dies, or is otherwise emancipated. The application shall be filed with the clerk of the district court where child support was ordered. A certified copy of the birth certificate, marriage license, death certificate, - 56 -
or court order of emancipation or an abstract of marriage as defined in section 71-601.01 shall accompany the application for termination of the child support. The clerk of the district court shall send notice of the filing of the child support termination application to the last-known address of the obligee. The notice shall inform the obligee that if he or she does not file a written objection within thirty days after the date the notice was mailed, child support may be terminated without further notice. The court shall terminate child support if no written objection has been filed within thirty days after the date the clerk’s notice to the obligee was mailed, the forms and procedures have been complied with, and the court believes that a hearing on the matter is not required. (4) The State Court Administrator shall develop uniform procedures and forms to be used to terminate child support. Source: Laws 2006, LB 1115, § 30. §43-504. “(1) The term dependent child shall mean a child under the age of nineteen years who is living with a relative or with a caretaker who is the child's legal guardian or conservator in a place of residence maintained by one or more of such relatives or caretakers as his, her, or their own home, or which child has been removed from the home of his or her father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, stepfather, stepmother, stepbrother, stepsister, uncle, aunt, first or second cousin, nephew, or niece as a result of judicial determination ..” Source: Laws 2007, LB 351, §1 § 43-1410. Child support; decree or approved settlement; effect after death of parent. Any judicially approved settlement or order of support made by a court having jurisdiction in the premises shall be binding on the legal representatives of the father or mother in the event of his or her death, to the same extent as other contractual obligations and judicial judgments or decrees. Source: Laws 1941, c. 81, §10, p. 325; C.S.Supp.,1941, § 43-710; R.S.1943, (1983), §13-110 Cavanaugh v. DeBaudiniere, 1 Neb. App. 204, 493 N.W.2d 197 (1992) The Nebraska Supreme Court, in Stuhr v. Stuhr, 240 Neb. 239, 481 N.W.2d 212 (1992), held that in the absence of a statutory provision otherwise, in a child custody controversy, a fit biological or adoptive parent has a superior right to custody of the child. The right of a biological parent to custody of the minor child is not lightly to be set aside in favor of more distant relatives or unrelated parties, and the courts may not deprive a parent of such custody unless the biological parent is shown to be unfit or to have forfeited his or her superior right to such custody. [A]n ex-stepparent is entitled to visitation of a former stepchild, based upon the doctrine of in loco parentis, where the stepparent and a young child have lived in a home environment and developed deep and lasting bonds of mutual affection. The courts have acknowledged the fact that a stepparent may be the only parent the child has truly known and loved during its minority. Therefore, rejection of visitation privileges cannot be based upon the mere fact that the person is not the biological parent, but is the stepparent. Thus, when the parties have developed a bond and the status of in loco parentis, the courts have protected the relationship by conferring rights of visitation. Should Thomas desire to continue such status, the district court shall fix his rights of visitation and determine the amount of child support payable by (the now ex-husband) for the support of (the child). - 57 -
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: Due Process Conn v. Conn, 13 Neb. 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 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?