Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

(2) the intention, or at least the expectation, that such conduct shall be acted
upon by, or influence, the other party or other persons; and
(3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts; and as to the other party,
(4) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts
in question;
(5) reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be
estopped; and
(6) action or inaction based thereon of such a character as to change the position
or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment, or
prejudice.
[See also Truman v. Truman, 256 Neb. 628, 591 N.W.2d 81 (1999)]
Someone who is not a party to the pending court action may not be estopped.
State on Behalf of Kayla T. v. Risinger, 273 Neb. 694, 731 N.W.2d 892 (2007)
Facts: Dad learned of unmarried Mom’s pregnancy, but had no contact with child for 17
years, until state filed paternity action. Dad admitted paternity but did not want to have to pay
$60,000+ in retro support for 17 years, citing mother’s promise not to come after him for support
in return for him staying away from his child. Held: Dad must pay the retro support.
A private agreement between parents that would deprive a child of support from one
parent contravenes the public policy of this. State.
[B]ecause the right to support belonged to [the child], any. Agreement made or
actions taken by [the mother] would not be the. Basis for equitable estoppel in this
paternity and child support action brought by the State on the child‘s behalf.
Even though the State fashioned the action as one brought on behalf of both the
mother and the child, at least with regard to issues of support, this action is one
brought on behalf of the child. To secure her right to support. Therefore, whether or
not the. Mother should be equitably estopped from seeking any sort of relief for
herself, the State was not estopped from seeking support on the child‘s behalf in this
action.
State on behalf of L.L.B. v. Hill, 268 Neb. 355, 682 N.W.2d 709 (2004)
To be entitled to equitable relief from a judgment, a party must show that the
situation is not due to his or her fault, neglect, or.carelessness.
Here, Hill does not deny that he received notice of the 1996.petition to establish
paternity and the State‘s motion for DNA. Testing. Instead of having the testing
done, he failed to appear, resulting in a default judgment. …Even though he firmly
believed. That he was not the child‘s father, he did nothing until the State.
Commenced contempt proceedings in 2002, almost 5 years after. The dismissal of
his motion to vacate in term. It was Hill‘s. inexcusable lack of diligence which led
to the accumulation of the arrearages, and as a result, equity will not aid him in
vacating those arrearages.
State on Behalf of J. R. v. Mendoza, 240 Neb. 149, 481 N.W.2d 165 (1992)
(Discussed in more detail elsewhere in this outline) Is a party who signs and files a
sworn acknowledgment of paternity with the department of vital statistics for
purposes of obtaining a new birth certificate conclusively established as the child‘s
―legal father?‖ ―[W]e decline to give such an acknowledgment conclusive effect.‖
- 68 -