Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

a coercive contempt sanction is conditioned upon the contemnor's continued
noncompliance with a court order; i.e., the defendant is in a position to mitigate the
sentence by complying with the court's order. In contrast, criminal contempt
sanctions are punitive. They vindicate the court's authority and cannot be ended by
any act of the contemnor.
only civil contempt orders issued before a final judgment in the main action are
interlocutory [and thus not appealable].
For appeal purposes, we hold that the distinction between criminal and civil
contempt sanctions has no relevance to whether a party may appeal from a final
order in a supplemental postjudgment contempt proceeding.
We now overrule any cases that could be interpreted as holding that a final civil
contempt order from a postjudgment proceeding is nonappealable and may only be
attacked through a habeas corpus proceeding.
a party to a final marital dissolution decree cannot ask a court to interpret the
decree other than through a modification or a contempt proceding
in some circumstances, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-358(3) (Reissue 2008) permits a
rebuttable presumption of contempt if a prima facie showing is made that an obligor
is delinquent in his or her child or spousal support obligations.
Because a conditional commitment is a possible sanction in a civil contempt
proceeding, we conclude that the "clear and convincing" standard of proof is the
most appropriate standard.
we overrule all the cases listed in footnote 129 to the extent that these cases hold or
imply that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for civil contempt
proceedings. Outside of statutory procedures imposing a different standard, it is the
complainant's burden to prove civil contempt by clear and convincing evidence.
State ex rel. Bonner v. McSwine, 14 Neb. App. 486, 709 N.W.2d 691 (2006)
A finding that a judgment debtor is not in contempt does not discharge or otherwise
impair the underlying judgment for child support. (Duh!)
Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1613 (Reissue 2004), in any and all cases referred
to a child support referee by the district court, the parties shall have the right to
take exceptions to the findings and recommendations made by the referee and to
have a further hearing before the district court for final disposition.
Corporations
Gangwish v. Gangwish, 267 Neb. 901, 678 N.W.2d 503 (2004)
While building equity in a corporation in lieu of taking salary can be a wise business
decision, the ―‘support of one‘s children is a fundamental obligation which takes
precedence over almost everything else.
It would simply be inequitable for the children to suffer because of the father‘s
decision to build value in the corporation by depressing his salary.
Courts must consider, in addition to looking at the noncustodial parent‘s reported
income, (1) the in-kind benefits, e.g., perquisites, that the parent received from the
corporation; (2) the corporation‘s depreciation expenses; and (3) with due regard for
- 40 -