Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

State, Dept. of Social Services v. Cummings, 2 Neb. App. 820, 515 N.W.2d 680 (1994)
Act of sexual intercourse in Nebraska that leads to conception constitutes sufficient
minimum contacts with state of Nebraska to give our court jurisdiction over out-ofstate
resident in paternity action.
State ex rel. Storz v. Storz, 235 Neb. 368, 455 N.W.2d 182 (1990)
Facts: Parents divorce in Hall County, but continue doing “the hanky-panky” during the
(then) 6 month waiting period before their divorce became final. Child was conceived during the
waiting period and born afterward. Later the State brought paternity case in Seward County,
seeking to have ex-husband named as father and to pay support. He admitted paternity but
alleged mother was homeless, so obtained custody of the child. Mother was not amused, and
responded by raising issue of lack of jurisdiction of Seward Co. to
hear case where issues flowed out of Hall Co. divorce case.
Recalling that the Hall County dissolution decree was
rendered on September 22, 1983, the marriage continued
for 6 months following that date, until March 22, 1984.
See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-372. … Consequently, the
record establishes that the child was conceived while the
father and mother were married.
Because the father and mother were married when the child was conceived, the
child is their legitimate son, and he is a product of their marriage. So only the Hall
Co. district court had jurisdiction to address issues of custody and support. [citing
also § 42-377]
parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a judicial tribunal by either
consent or acquiescence.
State on Behalf of Joseph F. v. Rial, 251 Neb. 1, 554 N.W.2d 769 (1996)
A district court retains jurisdiction for orders regarding child support notwithstanding
the fact that a paternity determination is on appeal.
Templeton v. Templeton, 9 Neb. App. 937, 622 N.W.2d 424 (2001)
An appellate court is without jurisdiction to entertain appeals from nonfinal orders.
To constitute a final, appealable order…, the case must involve an order which
affects a substantial right in an action and which determines the action and prevents
a judgment. O‘Connor v. Kaufman, 255 Neb. 120, 582 N.W.2d 350 (1998); Hake v.
Hake, 8 Neb. App. 376, 594 N.W.2d 648 (1999). Such an order must dispose of the
whole merits of the case and must leave nothing for further consideration of the
court, and thus, the order is final when no further action of the court is required to
dispose of the pending cause; however, if the cause is retained for further action, the
order is interlocutory.
Wharton v. Jackson, 107 Neb. 288, 185 N.W. 428 (1921)
[J]urisdiction of the court in matters relating to divorce and alimony is given by
statute, and every power exercised by the court in reference thereto must look to the
statute or it does not exist. [Citation omitted.] We cannot change it; we must
therefore take the decree as we find it, inasmuch as the interested parties have
made no move to change it but have treated it as final.
- 108 -