Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Intent may be inferred from the words or acts of the defendant and from the
circumstances surrounding the incident.
The determination of whether a defendant has the ability to pay child support in
order to determine whether the failure to do so was intentional is a question of fact
left to the jury.
State v. McCrimon, 15 Neb. App. 452, 729 N.W.2d 682 (2007)
Facts: Defendant was sentenced to intensive supervision probation (ISP) following
conviction for insurance fraud. One condition required him to pay $200/mo. Toward his child
support arrears, or be considered in violation of his probation. Defendant appealed.
When a court sentences a defendant to probation, it may impose any conditions of
probation that are authorized by statute.
Requiring a probationer to pay child support is statutorily authorized under Neb. Rev.
Stat. §29-2262(2) (Cum. Supp.2004).
―…although the impact of the probation order in the instant case may be harsh, it is
not unreasonable to expect [the defendant] to pay his preexisting child support
obligation when he currently has an income and some assets. Additionally, the
impact of the probation term may help ensure that [the defendant] maintains steady
employment and fulfills his family responsibilities.‖
Once probation is imposed, the defendant‘s ability to pay must be considered before
a court can revoke the probation and impose a jail term for violating a probation
condition requiring payments.
State v. Menuey, 239 Neb. 513, 476 N.W.2d 846 (1991)
Facts: Following divorce mother obtained full custody of the children in a modification action,
and the father’s child support obligation was then increased. Father responded by quitting his
job, leaving town and traveling the world, but never paying his support „because he was too
depressed.’ He worked many jobs in many different locations, but never paid support. At one
point he told the mother that “if anyone tried to make him pay more than $300, he would just
leave and [she] would never be able to get a dime and [she] would never be able to do nothing
about it.” In a letter to his work supervisor he wrote: “I feel that I can no longer work for a
company that allows an ex-spouse to garnishe [sic] my paycheck at will for any whim she
choses [sic]. . . . I am better off working for a non-corporation.” Criminal nonsupport charges
were later filed. A jury returned a guilty verdict. Father appealed.
There is more than sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant is and has
always been able-bodied and capable of earning at a rate sufficient to enable him to
support his children as directed in the modification order and that he simply elected,
for reasons of his own, not to do so.
[T]he failure to support one‟s children is a grave and ignoble offense and is to
be treated as such.
State v. Reuter, 216 Neb. 325, 343 N.W.2d 907 (1984)
Facts: Defendant was convicted of criminal non-support for failure to pay child support on
behalf of his 4 minor children, for which he had previously been court ordered to support. The
evidence establishes that defendant was capable of working, was employed, and earned at
least $1,000 per month.
A single act may give rise to both civil and criminal sanctions.
A sentence of imprisonment for the failure to support one‘s children as ordered by a
court does not violate the eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, §
- 42 -