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.
Paragraph C [now § 4-203] is very specific about the requirements for employing a<br />
deviation from the guidelines.<br />
Worksheet 3 ‗Calculation for Joint Physical Custody‘ shall not be utilized in the<br />
calculation of child support unless the parties have specifically been awarded ―joint<br />
physical custody.‖ <strong>Child</strong> support calculated on the basis of joint custody is<br />
fundamentally incorrect, absent a finding of a deviation which would justify such<br />
calculation. (where father awarded 5 overnight visits every 14 days and half of<br />
summer vacation, plus alternating holidays, held not joint custody)<br />
With respect to child support, the facts and the guidelines control the calculation –<br />
the parties cannot control the calculation by stipulation, unless the stipulation<br />
comports with the guidelines.<br />
Where child spends 50% of summer vacation time with noncustodial parent, that<br />
parent should receive a 50% abatement in his child support for the months of June,<br />
July and August.<br />
Note: In July 2008 the Federal <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Regulations were changed to define the term<br />
“reasonable in cost” as it pertains to the cost of a parent paying for dependent health<br />
insurance, or in the alternative, being ordered to pay “Cash Medical <strong>Support</strong>” for his or her<br />
minor child(ren). This new definition at last puts to rest much confusion about just what is a<br />
reasonable cost for dependent health insurance. See (45 CFR 303.31(a)(3)) for the federal<br />
definition.<br />
Changes to <strong>Nebraska</strong>’s child support guidelines effective September 30, 2009 reflect these<br />
updated federal definitions. <strong>Nebraska</strong>’s Unicameral passed LB 288 (codified at § 42-369),<br />
effective September 30, 2009. The law incorporates the concept of “Cash Medical <strong>Support</strong>”<br />
into our child support law. Cash Medical <strong>Support</strong> will have to be addressed, and likely ordered to<br />
be paid by the parent obligated to pay child support in all IV-D child support cases where the<br />
obligated parent is unable due to financial limitations or the lack of access to dependent<br />
health insurance to provide dependent health insurance for his or her minor child(ren).<br />
Note: A court may satisfy the federal requirement of Cash Medical by merely ordering the<br />
parent to share in a % of the uncovered medical expenses of the minor child, or the court can<br />
choose to order the parent to pay 3% of the parent’s gross monthly income. If a dollar figure<br />
is set, cash medical support will be paid like child support, through income withholding<br />
where possible, to the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Payment Center.<br />
Under <strong>Nebraska</strong> law, “Cash medical support or the cost of private health insurance is<br />
considered reasonable in cost if the cost to the party responsible for providing medical<br />
support does not exceed three percent of his or her gross income. In applying the threepercent<br />
standard, the cost is the cost of adding the children to existing health care coverage<br />
or the difference between self-only and family health care coverage. Cash medical support<br />
payments shall not be ordered if, at the time that the order is issued or modified, the<br />
responsible party’s income is or such expense would reduce the responsible party’s net<br />
income below the basic subsistence limitation provided in <strong>Nebraska</strong> Court Rule section 4-<br />
218.”<br />
Brandt v. Brandt, 227 Neb. 325, 327, 417 N.W.2d 339, 341 (1988), overruled on other<br />
grounds, Druba v. Druba, 238 Neb. 279, 470 N.W.2d 176 (1991).<br />
A judge may not satisfy his duty to act equitably toward all concerned, i.e., the<br />
parties and the children, by blindly following suggested guidelines.<br />
- 76 -