23.06.2014 Views

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!