Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Cooper v. Cooper, 8 Neb. App. 532, 538, 598 N.W.2d 474, 478 (1999)
In the absence of a showing of bad faith, it is an abuse of discretion for a court to
award retroactive child support when the evidence shows the obligated parent
does not have the ability to pay the retroactive support and still meet current
obligations. Cited with approval in Wilkins v. Wilkins, 269 Neb. 937 (2005); Emery
v. Moffett, 269 Neb. 867 (2005); and Henke v. Guerrero, 13 Neb. App. 337 (2005)
―The ability to pay is a paramount factor.‖
Emery v. Moffett, 269 Neb. 867, 697 N.W.2d 249 (2005)
It is improper for a court, in determining whether to order retro child support, to find
that a non custodial parent cannot afford to pay retro support now, but nonetheless
order him to pay retro support, but defer the time he has to begin paying it until after
the child emancipates.
Henke v. Guerrero, 13 Neb. App. 337, 692 N.W.2d 762 (2005)
What happens when “there is not enough money” to go around?
In the absence of a showing of bad faith, it is an abuse of discretion for a court to
award retroactive child support when the evidence shows the obligated parent
does not have the ability to pay the retroactive support and still meet current
obligations.
The paramount concern and question in determining child support is the best
interests of the child
Accordingly, the inability to pay retroactive support in a paternity case does not
obviate the obligation, but, rather, the consequences of such inability are to be
handled in the context of the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines, which are
applicable to paternity actions. (i.e. minimum support should be set)
The father‘s inability to pay retroactive support means that after assessing the
equities of the case, the court can deviate from the child support guidelines in setting
retroactive support, and because it is an equity matter, the court can also order a
payment plan for the retroactive support.
Lucero v. Lucero, 16 Neb. App. 706, 750 N.W.2d 377 (2008)
Absent equities to the contrary, the modification of child support orders should be
applied retroactively to the first day of the month following the filing date of the
application for modification.
In the absence of a showing of bad faith, it is an abuse of discretion for a court to
award retroactive child support when the evidence shows the obligated parent does
not have the ability to pay the retroactive support and still meet current obligations.
Matchett v. Dunkle, 244 Neb. 639, 508 N.W.2d 580 (1993)
Opens the door to retroactive child support in paternity cases.
Sylvis v. Walling, 248 Neb. 168, 532 N.W.2d 312 (1995)
[A] cause of action for the retroactive support of a child born out of wedlock
belongs not to the mother, but to the child.
[A]n obligation for retroactive child support is not a debt.
- 153 -