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.
State on Behalf of Martinez v. Martinez-Ibarra, 281 Neb. 547, ____ N.W.2d ____<br />
(May 2011)<br />
The child support guidelines do not allow for a deduction on Worksheet #1 for cash<br />
medical support. But see changes to the guidelines effective Sept. 1, 2011, that do!<br />
The requirement that the custodial parent pay the first $480 of nonreimbursed<br />
medical expenses per year does not serve to reduce the amount of cash medical<br />
support ordered.<br />
Stuczynski v. Stuczynski, 238 Neb. 368, 471 N.W.2d 122 (1991)<br />
The child support guidelines set out a rebuttable presumption of a fair and equitable<br />
child support order.<br />
Wilkins v. Wilkins, 269 Neb. 937, 697 N.W.2d 280 (2005)<br />
The twists and turns in the facts of this case are far too long to repeat here.<br />
Any deviation from the guidelines must take into consideration the best interests<br />
of the children.<br />
The party requesting a deviation from the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines based<br />
upon an obligation to support offspring of a subsequent relationship bears the<br />
burden of providing evidence regarding the obligation, including the income of the<br />
other parent of the child or children of the subsequent relationship.<br />
Whether a child support order should be retroactive is entrusted to the discretion of<br />
the trial court and will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.<br />
Willcock v. Willcock, 12 Neb. App. 422, 675 N.W.2d 721 (2004)<br />
Interpretation of the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines presents a question of law,<br />
regarding which an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of<br />
the determination reached by the court below.<br />
Workman v. Workman, 262 Neb. 373, 381, 632 N.W.2d 286, 294 (2001)<br />
This court has not set forth a rigid definition of what constitutes ―income,‖ but has<br />
instead relied on a flexible, fact-specific inquiry that recognizes the wide variety of<br />
circumstances that may be presented in child support cases.<br />
The reasonable contributions of a parent‘s new spouse to household expenses should<br />
not be included in the parent‘s gross income for purposes of determining child support,<br />
but may be considered in determining whether the circumstances warrant a deviation<br />
from the Guidelines.<br />
Health Insurance/Cash Medical <strong>Support</strong><br />
(See also Medicaid Reimbursement/ Medical <strong>Support</strong>)<br />
§42-369<br />
. . .<br />
(2) (a) If the party against whom an order, decree, or judgment for child<br />
support is entered or the custodial party has health insurance available to him<br />
or her through an employer, organization, or other health insurance entity<br />
which may extend to cover any children affected by the order, decree, or<br />
judgment and the health care coverage is accessible to the children and is<br />
available to the responsible party at reasonable cost, the court shall require<br />
- 82 -