Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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



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

The habitation or residence of a minor child is, by operation of law, determined and fixed by that of the parent legally entitled to the custody and control of the child unless the parent has voluntarily surrendered such right. The only way Eva could acquire a Kansas domicile is by becoming emancipated. The emancipation of a child by a parent may be proved by circumstantial evidence or may be implied from the conduct of the parties Wills v. Wills, 16 Neb. App. 559, 745 N.W.2d 924 (2008) Facts: 1992 New Mexico divorce. Dad to pay child support until children emancipate under NM law (age 18). Later both parents and the children move to NE, and Mom has NE court modify, and resets emancipation age to 19. Held: No can do! The court takes an extensive look into the various UIFSA amendments, and the official commentary accompanying those amendments, in reaching its decision. Section 42-746 states, in pertinent part: I Except as otherwise provided in section 42-747.03, a tribunal of this state shall not modify any aspect of a child support order that cannot be modified under the law of the issuing state, including the duration of the obligation of support. . . . (d) In a proceeding to modify a child support order, the law of the state that is determined to have issued the initial controlling order governs the duration of the obligation of support. The obligor’s fulfillment of the duty of support established by that order precludes imposition of a further obligation of support by a tribunal of this state. Despite a basic difference in the nature of the case, we rely upon the decision in Groseth v. Groseth, 257 Neb. 525, 600 N .W.2d 159 (1999), for guiding principles. … First, we properly look to the official comments contained in a model act on which a Nebraska statute or series of statutes was patterned for some guidance in an effort to ascertain the intent of the legislation. … Second, dicta in Groseth supports our interpretation. Third, a court must look to a statute’s purpose and give to the statute a reasonable construction which best achieves that purpose, rather than a construction which would defeat it. A comment to the 2001 UIFSA amendments…(states): The fact that the State of the new controlling order has a different duration of for [sic] child support is specifically declared to be irrelevant by UIFSA. … This comment refers to the 2001 amendment to UIFSA § 611 adding a new section (d), which was, in turn, adopted essentially verbatim by the Nebraska Legislature as the current § 42-746(d). Section 42-476I was also amended to expressly refer to the duration of the obligation of support as an aspect that cannot be modified under the law of the issuing state. [T]he duration of the support obligation remains fixed despite the subsequent residence of all parties in a new state with a different duration of child support. Wulff v. Wulff, 243 Neb. 616, 500 N.W.2d 845 (1993) Whether there has been an emancipation is a question of fact, but what is emancipation is a question of law. Emancipation is not necessarily a continuing status; even if once established, it may be terminated at any time during the child’s minority. A minor child giving birth may be one factor to be considered in the determination of whether a minor has achieved a new status or position inconsistent with parental control, but should not alone be dispositive. - 66 -
24A Am. Jur. 2d Divorce and Separation § 1042 (1998) [a] child who is attending college full-time, living with a parent during vacations and holidays, and who is employed only in the summer, is not emancipated. Likewise, a child who lives away from home but whose parents pay a substantial amount of money for medical and educational expenses and independent-living arrangements is not emancipated. Equity, Equitable Estoppel, Equitable Credit/”Overpayments” (See also Child Support & Related, Social Security) Berg v. Hayworth, 238 Neb 527, 471 N.W.2d 435 (1991) Permits equitable credits Cotton v. Cotton, 222 Neb. 306, 383 NW2d 739 (1986) A court has an inherent power to determine the status of its judgments. The district court may, on motion and satisfactory proof that a judgment had been fully paid or satisfied by the act of the parties thereto, order it discharged and canceled of record. Eliker v. Eliker, 206 Neb. 764, 295 N.W.2d 268 (1980) Courts are without authority to reduce the amount of accrued child support (absent equitable estoppel). Gress v. Gress; 257 Neb. 112; 596 N.W.2d 8 (1999) (Gress I) Hanthorn v. Hanthorn 236 Neb 225, 460 N.W.2d 650 (1990) Social Security payments made to a parent’s child on account of the parent’s disability should be considered as credits towards the parents’ court ordered obligation in the absence of circumstances making credit inequitable. Such benefit payments are the result of the obligor’s disability and are a substitute for the obligor’s loss of earning power and his or her obligation to pay for the support of his or her dependents. Social security payments satisfy court ordered child support on a month by month basis. They may not be carried over to satisfy court ordered support amounts in future months. With regard to social security benefits, a non-custodial parent may be entitled to an equitable credit against child support arrearages, with certain qualifications, but there is no entitlement to credit against future child support payments. Future obligations are not yet accrued, and because they are subject to modification, they are not ascertainable. Excess Social Security benefits should be applied to child support arrearage which has accrued since the date of the occurrence which entitled the parent to receive such benefits. The credit allowed for Social Security benefit payments is equitable in nature. The date of the occurrence which entitles a person to Social Security benefits should be used for purposes of establishing when the benefits may be utilized as a substitute for income. Equitable considerations lead us to allow excess Social Security dependency benefits to be credited against child support arrearage which has accrued from the date of the occurrence which entitled the parent to such - 67 -
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: Millatmal v. Millatmal, 272 Neb. 45
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?