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.
9, of the <strong>Nebraska</strong> Constitution, both of which prohibit the infliction of ―cruel and<br />
unusual‖ punishment.<br />
―To abandon one‘s children to a life of poverty and reliance upon public charity is a<br />
heinous and ignoble offense and is to be treated as such.‖<br />
We do not think the allowance for the support of defendant‘s minor child bears any<br />
resemblance whatever to a debt, and therefore the constitution does not forbid<br />
imprisonment for the defendant‘s refusal to obey the order of the court. (citing<br />
Fussell v. State, 102 Neb. 117, 166 N.W. 197 (1918))<br />
State v. Yelli, 247 Neb. 785, 530 N.W.2d 250 (1995)<br />
This case reminds us of the clear distinction between the standards of proof in civil vs.<br />
criminal cases. The burden of establishing a paternity judgment is lower than for that of<br />
establishing elements of a criminal conviction. Don’t assume you can prove paternity in a<br />
criminal case by introducing the record of the paternity judgment.<br />
Both federal and state due process dictate that an indigent defendant in a stateassisted<br />
civil paternity action has the right to the services of appointed counsel.<br />
Where a record is silent as to a defendant‘s opportunity for counsel, an appellate<br />
court may not presume that such rights were respected.<br />
A mother‘s testimony that one is the father of her child is sufficient only if she be<br />
corroborated as to material facts and circumstances which tend to support her<br />
testimony and from which, together with her testimony as to the principal act, the<br />
inference of paternity may be drawn.<br />
The burden in a criminal proceeding is to produce proof beyond a reasonable doubt<br />
of every element of a charged offense. The doctrines of res judicata and collateral<br />
estoppel are not applicable when the burden of persuasion is different in the<br />
subsequent proceeding.<br />
See also <strong>Nebraska</strong> v. Bright, 238 Neb. 348, 470 N.W.2d 181 (1991)<br />
(Quite) a bit about Custody & Visitation<br />
(See also <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines)<br />
§ 42-358. Attorney for minor child; appointment; powers; child or spousal support;<br />
records; income withholding; contempt proceedings; fees; evidence; appeal.<br />
(b) The court may appoint an attorney to protect the interests<br />
of any minor children of the parties. Such attorney shall be<br />
empowered to make independent investigations and to<br />
cause witnesses to appear and testify on matters pertinent<br />
to the welfare of the children. The court shall by order fix<br />
the fee, including disbursements, for such attorney, which<br />
amount shall be taxed as costs and paid by the parties as<br />
ordered. If the court finds that the party responsible is<br />
indigent, the court may order the county to pay the costs.<br />
…<br />
Annotations:<br />
From June 1, 1998, forward, when appointing a guardian ad litem or an attorney to represent the interests<br />
of the minor pursuant to this section in forums other than the juvenile court, the appointing court, in the<br />
order making the appointment, shall specify whether the person appointed is to act as a guardian ad litem<br />
- 43 -