Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

waived sovereign immunity, the juvenile court had authority to enforce its contempt
order against DHHS.
Although not framed as a due process issue, DHHS nevertheless contends and we
agree that adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to entry of
a contempt order are warranted.
To find a party in contempt in juvenile court, there must be a finding of willful
violation of a juvenile court‘s order. . . . [O]nly a willful failure to abide by the juvenile
court‘s order would be contemptuous and, . . . willfulness is a fact which must be
established on the record.
Based on the record presented, DHHS has not yet been held in contempt as a result
of this order. Thus, DHHS‘ objection to this order is limited to the terms of the order
itself. We conclude that the order appealed from is not a final, appealable order.
To be final and appealable, an order in a special proceeding must affect a
substantial right. . . . A substantial right is an essential legal right, not a mere
technical right.
Klinginsmith v. Wichmann, 252 Neb. 889, 567 N.W.2d 172 (1997)
The portion of this case indicating that a civil contempt order is not an appealable order has been
overruled.
In Nebraska, dissolution of marriage cases are equitable in nature, [A] civil
contempt proceeding cannot be the means to afford equitable relief to a party
[see also Blaine v. Blaine, 275 Neb. 87, 744 NW2d 444 (2008), which involves
using a contempt hearing to interpret provisions of a QDRO ordered as part of the
Decree of Dissolution.]
Lenz v. Lenz, 222 Neb. 85, 382 N.W.2d 323 (1986)
A judgment must be sufficiently certain in its terms to be able to be enforced in a
manner provided by law.
[W]e hold that the part of the divorce decree in this case which ordered the payment
of "all of the expenses for the minor child's special schooling" is indefinite, uncertain,
and incapable of enforcement. For these reasons it is fatally defective and cannot
be enforced.
But see: Druba v. Druba , 238 Neb. 279, 470 N.W.2d 176 (1991)
[A] trial court may make appropriate orders as to the manner in which expenses,
after the [dependent health] insurance payments, are to be shared. While such
an order could not result in the issuance of an execution by a clerk, the order is
enforceable through the contempt power of the court. There is no other way that
unknown future expenses can be handled.
Locke v. Volkmer, 8 Neb. App. 797, 601 N.W.2d 807 (1999)
An appellate court, reviewing a final judgment or order in a contempt proceeding,
reviews for errors appearing on the record. When reviewing a judgment for errors
appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is
supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor
unreasonable. A trial court‘s factual finding in a contempt proceeding will be upheld
on appeal unless the finding is clearly erroneous.
[T]the Nebraska Supreme Court held that to be reasonable, the amount of
money that a person is required to pay in order to purge oneself of contempt
must be within the person‘s ability to pay. The trial court must take into
- 37 -