Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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



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

Jessen v. Line, 16 Neb. App. 197, 742 N.W.2d 30 (2007) Facts: Apparently wealthy businessman father plays ―hide the ball‖ with his financial records, preventing mother from ever seeing them, despite 3 court orders. The court of appeals scolds both sides for not resolving that issue using the ―persuasive powers‖ of the trial court. [A temporary child] support order was merely an interlocutory order from which no appeal could be taken. The fact that the initial [temporary] child support order was interlocutory militates in favor of making the final order retroactive Rickus v. Rickus, 183 Neb. 140, 158 N. W. 2d 540 (1969) [T]emporary orders in the district court allowing alimony, child support, etc., terminate with the rendition of a final decree of divorce or the overruling of a motion for new trial if one be filed. Hall v. Hall, 176 Neb. 555, 126 N. W. 2d 839 Note: All temporary orders are subject to vacation/termination by court order if the parties do not timely follow up with a final, permanent order of support. If a temporary order ends up on the dismissal docket, and dismissed under the case progression standards, the parties will have to start over again. When paternity is involved, the termination of the case terminates the finding of paternity, forcing the child support interests to “start from scratch” with a new complaint for paternity and support. Termination of Parental Rights This treatise does not attempt to provide an exhaustive treatment on the issue of termination of parental rights. However, often times families affected by child support orders we are charged with enforcing end up in juvenile court with allegations of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. Particularly with the issue of child abandonment our appellate courts seem to be taking a harder line as to what constitutes grounds for termination of parental rights. I will list below a few appellate cases that address these issues and set guidelines for when a parent should have their parental rights and child support responsibilities terminated. In re Interest of Angelica L. & Daniel L., 277 Neb. 984, 767 N.W.2d 74 (2009) The jurisdiction of the State in juvenile adjudication cases arises out of the power every sovereignty possesses as parens patriae to every child within its borders to determine the status and custody that will best meet the child‘s needs and wants. a court may not properly deprive a parent of the custody of his or her minor child unless the State affirmatively establishes that such parent is unfit to perform the duties imposed by the relationship, or has forfeited that right. The fact that a child has been placed outside the home for 15 or more of the most recent 22 months does not demonstrate parental unfitness. The placement of a child outside the home for 15 or more of the most recent 22 months under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(7) (Reissue 2008) merely provides a guideline for what would be a reasonable time for parents to rehabilitate themselves to a minimum level of fitness. Regardless of the length of time a child is placed outside the home, it is always the State‘s burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit and that the child‘s best interests are served by his or her continued removal from parental custody. The ―best interests‖ standard is subject to the overriding presumption that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected and that the best - 170 -
interests of a child are served by reuniting the child with his or her parent. This presumption is overcome only when the parent has been proved unfit. UIFSA Interstate & Related (See also Choice of Law & UIFSA) Arguably the most complex, confusing and frustrating, part of the work of a child support attorney comes in the area of UIFSA – The Uniform Interstate Family <strong>Support</strong> Act. Think of the saying “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread” and you will get the idea. But you are no angel…. Familiarizing yourself with the statutes will help you a lot. Beware however, thousands of other child support offices across America may still not understand UIFSA, and that will be a constant source of frustration for those who do. See Generally §42-701 et seq Selected statutes follow: § 42-705 Basis for jurisdiction over nonresident. (a) In a proceeding to establish or enforce a support order or to determine parentage, a tribunal of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual or the individual’s guardian or conservator if: (1) The individual is personally served with notice within this state; (2) The individual submits to the jurisdiction of this state by consent, by entering a general appearance, or by filing a responsive document having the effect of waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction; (3) The individual resided with the child in this state; (4) The individual resided in this state and provided prenatal expenses or support for the child; (5) The child resides in this state as a result of the acts or directives of the individual; (6) The individual engaged in sexual intercourse in this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse; (7) The individual asserted parentage in this state pursuant to section 43-104.02, 71-628, 71-640.01, or 71-640.02 with the Department of Health and Human Services; or (8) There is any other basis consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. (b) The basis of personal jurisdiction set forth in subsection (a) of this section or in any other law of this state shall not be used to acquire personal jurisdiction for a tribunal of this state to modify a child support order of another state unless the requirements of section 42-746 or 42-747.03 are met. Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 5; Laws 1996, LB 1044, § 101; Laws 2003, LB 148, § 46; Laws 2007, LB296, § 60. - 171 -
Page 1 and 2:
Happy 2012! In The News: Unicameral
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents:* * (accessible v
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents (continued): Pare
Page 7 and 8:
A Note for Legal Practitioners: Mem
Page 9 and 10:
Overview/ IV-D Attorney Duty Gangwi
Page 11 and 12:
appear to him [or her] legal and ju
Page 13 and 14:
―the Court draws a distinction be
Page 15 and 16:
otherwise provided in sections 25-2
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:
only if it shall find and determine
Page 25 and 26:
Emery v. Moffett, 269 Neb. 867, 697
Page 27 and 28:
$60,000+ in retro support for 17 ye
Page 29 and 30:
month by said clerk in cases in whi
Page 31 and 32:
concerning the proceedings in the a
Page 33 and 34:
Minimum Contacts. An act of sexual
Page 35 and 36:
[UIFSA] Section 42-742(a)(5) clearl
Page 37 and 38:
In the case of People v. Lucero, 74
Page 39 and 40:
A court may not impose punishment
Page 41 and 42:
Contempt What follows is a discussi
Page 43 and 44:
waived sovereign immunity, the juve
Page 45 and 46:
A parent has no right to insist upo
Page 47 and 48:
usiness realities, the amount of th
Page 49 and 50:
9, of the Nebraska Constitution, bo
Page 51 and 52:
Drew on Behalf of Reed v. Reed, 16
Page 53 and 54:
Absent circumstances which justify
Page 55 and 56:
Welch v. Welch, Jr., 246 Neb. 435,
Page 57 and 58:
guardian ad litem to represent the
Page 59 and 60:
Clymer v. La Velle, 194 Neb. 91, 23
Page 61 and 62:
Duty to Support; Duration of Suppor
Page 63 and 64:
Finnern v. Bruner, 167 Neb. 281, 92
Page 65 and 66:
Henke v. Guerrero, 13 Neb. App. 337
Page 67 and 68:
Millatmal v. Millatmal, 272 Neb. 45
Page 69 and 70:
24A Am. Jur. 2d Divorce and Separat
Page 71 and 72:
the tax exemptions. [The noncustodi
Page 73 and 74:
obligation, should generally apply
Page 75 and 76:
―[C]oncerns regarding the stigma
Page 77 and 78:
(3) The court shall apply the statu
Page 79 and 80:
(d) If, at any time in the proceedi
Page 81 and 82:
Birth related medical expenses rema
Page 83 and 84:
Brockman v. Brockman, 264 Neb. 106,
Page 85 and 86:
Daycare and medical reimbursement o
Page 87 and 88:
equired by the guidelines. Such req
Page 89 and 90:
health care coverage to be provided
Page 91 and 92:
Given that the agreement sets forth
Page 93 and 94:
Newer Case Law re. Incarceration an
Page 95 and 96:
Dueling v. Dueling, 257 Neb. 862, 6
Page 97 and 98:
has no control over should not be c
Page 99 and 100:
Any employer who shall fail or refu
Page 101 and 102:
§43-1718.01. Obligor; subject to i
Page 103 and 104:
such notice bears to the total amou
Page 105 and 106:
forward the child support payment.
Page 107 and 108:
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of
Page 109 and 110:
Judgments (see also Jurisdiction) 2
Page 111 and 112:
(3) The individual resided with the
Page 113 and 114:
―in a proceeding under the Nebras
Page 115 and 116:
Juvenile Court Many headaches are c
Page 117 and 118:
§ 43-3319 License holder; motion o
Page 119 and 120:
distributions to the judgment for $
Page 121 and 122:
appellate court tries factual quest
Page 123 and 124:
Note: In response to a new federal
Page 125 and 126: §43-512.14. Title IV-D child suppo
Page 127 and 128: adduce evidence of any inequity tha
Page 129 and 130: Non-custodial parent who lost high
Page 131 and 132: Lamb v. Lamb, 14 Neb. App. 337, 707
Page 133 and 134: trouble at work and resigned his jo
Page 135 and 136: Riggs v. Riggs, 261 Neb. 344, 622 N
Page 137 and 138: not, under the circumstances presen
Page 139 and 140: Wilson v. Wilson, 19 Neb. App. 103,
Page 141 and 142: §43-512. Application for assistanc
Page 143 and 144: §43-1406 Determination of paternit
Page 145 and 146: (4) All judgments under this sectio
Page 147 and 148: Carlson v. Bartels, 143 Neb. 680, 1
Page 149 and 150: as to the paternity of the minor ch
Page 151 and 152: Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 241 Neb. 43
Page 153 and 154: Quirks, Oddities and other Practice
Page 155 and 156: Note: Additional resources relating
Page 157 and 158: egular contact with the child. Comp
Page 159 and 160: Cooper v. Cooper, 8 Neb. App. 532,
Page 161 and 162: into or born into these relationshi
Page 163 and 164: Moore v. Bauer, 11 Neb. App. 572, 6
Page 165 and 166: parents; child support; termination
Page 167 and 168: (B) the servicemember has a meritor
Page 169 and 170: Ward v. Ward, 7 Neb. App. 821, 585
Page 171 and 172: specifically finds that conformity
Page 173 and 174: [A] petition to modify alimony will
Page 175: Hall v. Hall, 238 Neb. 686, 472 N.W
Page 179 and 180: Source: Laws 1993: LB 500, § 22.
Page 181 and 182: seeks modification in the respondin
Page 183 and 184: § 42-745 Effect of registration fo
Page 185 and 186: … First, we properly look to the
Page 187 and 188: Neither of the parties is authorize
Page 189 and 190: the purpose of that litigation, all
Page 191 and 192: and that the child's best interests
Page 193 and 194: D. Unless otherwise agreed to, inte
Page 195 and 196: (E) Any order for support presented
Page 197 and 198: Unicameral Update (A daily report o
Page 199 and 200: services. Under LB 288, cash medica
Page 201 and 202: BAH FAQ - http://perdiem.hqda.penta
Page 203 and 204: Daily Legal Newswire - www.law.com/
Page 205: Above All Else: Keep your sense of
show all

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?