23.06.2014 Views

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Jensen v. Jensen, 275 Neb. 921, 750 N.W.2d 335 (2008)<br />

[W]e have never held that the absence of a child support worksheet provides a<br />

basis for a collateral attack on a final judgment. Once the [child support] order<br />

became final, even without a worksheet, it was enforceable.<br />

[P]ublic policy forbids enforcement of a private agreement that purports to<br />

discharge a parent‘s liability for child support, if the agreement does not adequately<br />

provide for the child.<br />

Johnson v. Johnson, 215 Neb. 689, 340 N.W.2d 393 (1983)<br />

Where an award for child support is made in one amount for each succeeding month<br />

for more than one child, it will be presumed to continue in force for the full amount<br />

until the youngest child reaches his majority. The proper remedy, if this be deemed<br />

unjust, is to seek a modification of the decree in the court which entered it, on the<br />

basis of the changed circumstances.<br />

A single amount to be paid periodically for the support of more than one child is not<br />

subject to an automatic pro rata reduction.<br />

Mehne v. Hess, 4 Neb. App. 935, 553 N.W.2d 482 (1996)<br />

The trial court‘s award of child support after a determination of paternity will not be<br />

disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Smith, 231 Neb. 740,<br />

437 N.W.2d 803 (1989); Hanson v. Rockwell, 206 Neb. 299, 292 N.W.2d 786<br />

(1980).<br />

Muller v. Muller, 3 Neb. App. 159, 524 N.W.2d 78 (1994)<br />

The paramount concern and question in determining child support, whether in an<br />

initial marital dissolution action or in proceedings for modification of a decree, is the<br />

best interests of the child. See also Phelps v. Phelps, 239 Neb. 618, 477<br />

N.W.2d 552 (1991)<br />

Neb. Rev. Stat. §42-371(5) authorizes the posting of security to insure the payment<br />

of child support. Reasonable security to insure payment of child support should be<br />

invoked only when compelling circumstances require it.<br />

The fact that a custodial parent is not ordered to remit a monthly dollar amount for<br />

child support does not release him or her from the obligation to contribute to the<br />

support of the children. Earning capacity of each parent, and not merely the actual<br />

income, is to be considered in determining the amount of child support to be paid by<br />

a parent.<br />

Simpson v. Simpson, 275 Neb. 152, 744 N.W.2d 410 (2008)<br />

After determining that expatriate compensation IS income for purposes of calculating a<br />

child support award….<br />

Under the facts of this case [where the NCP lived abroad and had much higher living<br />

expenses than he would have if he lived in the U.S.], we cannot say that the district<br />

court abused its discretion when it determined that [the obligated parent‘s]<br />

expatriate compensation is not reasonably available for child support payments.<br />

State on Behalf of Kayla T. v. Risinger, 273 Neb. 694, 731 N.W.2d 892 (2007)<br />

Facts: Dad learned of unmarried Mom’s pregnancy, but had no contact with child for 17 years,<br />

until state filed paternity action. Dad admitted paternity but did not want to have to pay<br />

- 20 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!