Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
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 -