Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

egular contact with the child. Complicating matters further, courts must ultimately
perform the difficult task of weighing the best interests of the child, which may or
may not be consistent with the personal interests of either or both parents.
To prevail on a motion to remove a minor child, the custodial parent must first satisfy
the court that he or she has a legitimate reason for leaving the state. . . . After
clearing that threshold, the custodial parent must next demonstrate that it is in the
child‘s best interests to continue living with him or her. . . . Of course, whether a
proposed move is in the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration.
In determining whether removal to another jurisdiction is in the child‘s best interests,
the trial court considers (1) each parent‘s motives for seeking or opposing the move;
(2) the potential that the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the child and
the custodial parent; and (3) the impact such a move will have on contact between
the child and the noncustodial parent, when viewed in the light of reasonable
visitation. See McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 264 Neb. 232, 647 N.W.2d 577 (2002).
Gartner v. Hume, 12 Neb. App. 741, 686 N.W.2d 58 (2004)
To prevail on a motion to remove a minor child to another jurisdiction, the custodial
parent must first satisfy the court that he or she has a legitimate reason for leaving
the state. After clearing that threshold, the custodial parent must next demonstrate
that it is in the child‘s best interests to continue living with him or her.
Hibbard v. Hibbard, 230 Neb. 364, 366, 431 N.W.2d 637, 639 (1988).
Children have the right to be treated as interested and affected persons and not as
pawns or chattel of either or both parents.
Shaffer v. Shaffer, 231 Neb. 910, 438 N.W.2d 507 (1989)
Generally, siblings should not be separated.
Res Judicata & Paternity
(a/k/a ―My two dads‖)
(see also Collateral Estoppel)
DeVaux v. DeVaux, 245 Neb. 611, 621-22, 514 N.W.2d 640, 647 (1994)
Facts: Wife gave birth during marriage to child fathered by a boyfriend. She did not inform her
husband. Parties later divorced and husband was ordered to pay child support, and was given
rights of visitation. Later mother came clean with ex-husband, because she married boyfriend.
She wanted child support stopped, as well as visitation. Ex-husband refused to go along, citing
his bond with child. Genetic tests showed 2 nd husband was bio dad.
Under the doctrine of res judicata, does a finding of paternity in a dissolution decree
prevent the parties to the decree from relitigating paternity? We answer this
question: Yes.
Res judicata bars relitigation of any right, fact, or matter directly addressed or
necessarily included in a former adjudication if (1) the former judgment was
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the former judgment was a final
judgment, (3) the former judgment was on the merits, and (4) the same parties or
their privies were involved in both actions.
A fundamental fact necessary to sustain an order of child support is paternity by the
man judicially obligated to pay such support.
- 151 -