Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Dueling v. Dueling, 257 Neb. 862, 601 N.W.2d 516 (1999)
All income from employment, whether full time or part time, must be included in
the initial calculation, which then becomes a rebuttable presumption of
appropriate support. A parent who believes that the inclusion of certain income
would be unjust or inappropriate may rebut the presumption by offering evidence in
support of his or her position that a deviation from the guidelines is warranted for
that reason.
A determination of whether to include income from a second job should be made on
a case-by-case basis, in the context of whether deviation from the guidelines by
exclusion of such income is necessary to achieve a fair and equitable child support
order.
Relevant considerations include the previous history of employment, the
qualifications for the second job, the extent to which the parent may be under
employed in the primary job, the health of the individual, the needs of the family, the
rigors of the primary job and the second job, and all other circumstances. See
Cochran v. Cochran, 14 Va. App. 827, 419 S.E.2d 419 (1992).
There is a presumption that income from multiple jobs should be included in
determining a child support obligor‘s child support obligation, unless the presumption
is rebutted.
Gangwish v. Gangwish, 267 Neb. 901, 678 N.W.2d 503 (2004)
We have not set forth a rigid definition of what constitutes ―income,‖ but have instead
relied on a flexible, fact-specific inquiry that recognizes the wide variety of
circumstances that may be present in child support cases. Workman v. Workman,
262 Neb. 373, 632 N.W.2d 286 (2001). Thus, income for the purpose of child
support is not necessarily synonymous with taxable income. Gase v. Gase,
266 Neb. 975, 671 N.W.2d 223 (2003); Rhoades v. Rhoades, 258 Neb. 721, 605
N.W.2d 454 (2000); Rauch v. Rauch, 256 Neb. 257, 590 N.W.2d 170 (1999).
We take a flexible approach in determining a person‘s ―income‖ for purposes of child
support, because child support proceedings are, despite the child support
guidelines, equitable in nature. Thus, a court is allowed, for example, to add “inkind”
benefits derived from an employer or third party to a party‘s income. See
also Workman v. Workman, 262 Neb. 373, 632 N.W.2d 286 (2001).
Equity allows a court to disregard the corporate veil when necessary to do justice.
Gase v. Gase, 266 Neb. 975, 671 N.W.2d 223 (2003)
While the decision to participate in a retirement plan may be voluntary in the first
instance, where contributions made to the plan thereafter become mandatory, the
minimum contribution required by the plan in effect at the time child support is
calculated is deducted from income in determining a party‘s net income.
Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N.W.2d 67 (2007)
Issue: How many years back should a court go in averaging income of parents with fluctuating
income.
As a general matter, in the determination of child support, income from a selfemployed
individual is determined by looking to that person‘s tax returns.
- 89 -