Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

trouble at work and resigned his job in the face of being fired. He could not find other
employment paying more than $35,000 per year, so filed to modify his child support and
alimony. The District court sided with father, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
Matthew was clearly involved in ―employee misconduct‖. [A] request to modify
child support will be denied if the change in financial circumstances is due to fault or
voluntary wastage or dissipation of one‘s talents and assets. … We reverse and
vacate the district court‘s downward modification of Matthew‘s child support and
alimony obligation on the ground of Matthew‘s reduced earnings.
Noonan v. Noonan, 261 Neb. 552, 624 N.W.2d 314 (2001);
Moore v. Bauer, 11 Neb. App. 572, 657 N.W.2d 25 (2003)
Modification of child support payments is entrusted to the trial court‘s discretion, and
although, on appeal, the issue is reviewed de novo on the record, the decision of the
trial court will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.
The rule, absent equities to the contrary, should generally be that the modification
of a child support order should be applied retroactively to the first day of the
month following the filing date of the application for modification.
Peter v. Peter, 262 Neb. 1017, 637 N.W.2d 865 (2002)
It is not in the best interests of the children to allow income averaging when a
father‘s income was consistently increasing.
As a general matter, the parties‘ current earnings are to be used in calculating
child support.
Pope v. Pope ; 251 Neb. 773, 559 N.W.2d 192 (1997)
(Voluntary Wastage. Obligated parent fired from high paying job for falling asleep during the
night shift. The Supremes offer little sympathy, except in the dissent.)
An appellate court entrusts the modification of an alimony award to the discretion of
the trial court and reviews the trial court‘s decision de novo on the record for abuse
of discretion.
Orders for alimony may be modified or revoked for good cause shown. Good
cause is demonstrated by a material change in circumstances, but
any changes in circumstances which were within the
contemplation of the parties at the time of the decree, or that
were accomplished by the mere passage of time, do not justify a
change or modification of an alimony order.
We therefore extend the rule of Ohler to cases involving the
modification or termination of alimony and find that a petition for
the modification or termination of alimony will be denied if the
change in financial condition is due to fault or voluntary wastage
or dissipation of one‘s talents and assets.
Rauch v. Rauch; 256 Neb. 257, 590 N.W.2d 170 (1999)
[E]vidence (that the custodial parent‘s income has substantially increased since the
last modification of child support) raises an inference that a proper calculation under
the child support guidelines would result in a variation of (the noncustodial parent‘s)
support obligation by 10 percent or more and $25 or more, which would establish a
rebuttable presumption of a material change in circumstances. See Nebraska Child
Support Guidelines, paragraph Q [now § 4-217].
- 127 -