Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$F:\Kevin\2007 Case Lists\Currently on web page\District Judges ...$



$\\orion\ChildSupport\Kevin\2007 Case Lists\Currently on web page ...$

shall include any periodic payments pursuant to a pension or a retirement program and dividends, and (2) any other income from whatever source derived. Source: Laws 1985, Second Spec. Sess., LB 7, § 31; Laws 1993, LB 523, § 13 Total Monthly Income is defined as the “income of both parties derived from all sources, except all means-tested public assistance benefits and payments received for children of prior marriages.” – Nebraska Child Support Guidelines, §4-204 A note about Military Pay and Benefits: Members of the military are often eligible for multiple types of pay, including base pay, BAS (Basic Allowance for Subsistence) and BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing). While base pay and other types of pay (incentive pay, enlistment bonuses, hardship duty pay, to name a few) are taxable income, BAH and BAS are not. See the following IRS publication for a complete breakdown: www.irs.gov/publications/p3/ar02.html#en_US_publink100095947 All veterans benefits, of whatever type or source, are tax EXEMPT. See www.military.com/veterans-report/veterans-benefits-not-taxable. These non-taxable benefits include education, training and subsistence allowances; disability compensation and pension payments for disabilities; grants for homes designed for wheelchair living; grants for motor vehicles for veterans who lost their sight or the use of their limbs; veterans’ insurance proceeds and dividends; benefits under a dependentcare assistance program; and payments made under the compensated work therapy program. Tax information for members of the military is available on the IRS website. A link to DFAS and military pay charts is available here> www.dfas.mil/dfas.html Brockman v. Brockman, 264 Neb. 106, 646 N.W.2d 594 (2002) [F]ood stamps are means-tested public assistance benefits that are excluded from income pursuant to paragraph D of the Guidelines. 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). - 96 -
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. (Reviewing) a 3-year average (income) tends to be the most common approach in cases where a parent’s income tends to fluctuate. It is not necessary for a court to look back more than three years. Henderson v. Henderson, 264 Neb. 916, 653 N.W.2d 226 (2002) The Nebraska Child Support Guidelines provide that in calculating the amount of support to be paid, a court must consider the total monthly income, defined as the income of both parties derived from all sources, except all means-tested public assistance benefits. Social Security disability insurance program benefits are not means-tested public assistance benefits, but are based on prior earnings of the recipient, not on the financial need of the recipient. Mehne v. Hess, 4 Neb. App 935, 553 N.W.2d 482 (1996) Entire net amount received from personal injury settlement award constitutes income for child support purposes - 97 -
Page 1 and 2:
The Unicameral remains in session u
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents:* * (accessible v
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents (continued): Mili
Page 7 and 8:
A Note for Legal Practitioners: Mem
Page 9 and 10:
Secondly, I have taken the approach
Page 11 and 12:
sections, the county attorney or au
Page 13 and 14:
final court-ordered determination t
Page 15 and 16:
clerk of the district court in whic
Page 17 and 18:
(1) In proceedings under sections 4
Page 19 and 20:
Nebraska courts, through their inhe
Page 21 and 22:
place. This recommendation recogniz
Page 23 and 24:
(4) Orders, decrees, and judgments
Page 25 and 26:
Mother apparently consents to this
Page 27 and 28:
Johnson v. Johnson, 215 Neb. 689, 3
Page 29 and 30:
stand dismissed without prejudice a
Page 31 and 32:
This case includes an excellent sum
Page 33 and 34:
Koch v. Koch, 226 Neb. 305, 312, 41
Page 35 and 36:
We conclude that the state was not
Page 37 and 38:
Modifying the amounts awarded to a
Page 39 and 40:
[P]ublic policy forbids enforcement
Page 41 and 42:
Carroll v. Moore, 228 Neb. 561, 423
Page 43 and 44:
(3) … A rebuttable presumption of
Page 45 and 46:
Lenz v. Lenz, 222 Neb. 85, 382 N.W.
Page 47 and 48:
Finally, we conclude that for futur
Page 49 and 50:
(7) Criminal nonsupport is a Class
Page 51 and 52: A mother’s testimony that one is
Page 53 and 54: Neither of the parties is authorize
Page 55 and 56: In guardianship termination proceed
Page 57 and 58: Weinand v. Weinand, 260 Neb. 146, 6
Page 59 and 60: verification forms instead of tax r
Page 61 and 62: State v. Cummings, 2 Neb. App. 820,
Page 63 and 64: Where parents of the child are sepa
Page 65 and 66: any unpaid child support obligation
Page 67 and 68: Henderson v. Henderson, 264 Neb. 91
Page 69 and 70: (0,1,2,or 3+) and how much “earne
Page 71 and 72: Earning capacity may be used as a b
Page 73 and 74: esponding state is modifying a supp
Page 75 and 76: [T]he duration of the support oblig
Page 77 and 78: A future payment of child support i
Page 79 and 80: Such a credit clause does not viola
Page 81 and 82: State on behalf of L.L.B. v. Hill,
Page 83 and 84: (1) That withholding is not proper
Page 85 and 86: Source: Laws 1974, LB 354, § 226,
Page 87 and 88: In re Interest of Lakota Z. & Jacob
Page 89 and 90: Note: In July 2008 the Federal Chil
Page 91 and 92: Erica J. v. Dewitt, 265 Neb. 728, 6
Page 93 and 94: Moore v. Bauer, 11 Neb. App. 572, 6
Page 95 and 96: Sears v. Larson, 259 Neb. 760, 612
Page 97 and 98: health care coverage is not availab
Page 99 and 100: Druba v. Druba , 238 Neb. 279, 470
Page 101: Rouse v. Rouse, 18 Neb. App. 128, 7
Page 105 and 106: The Nebraska Supreme Court has not
Page 107 and 108: §42-364.12 Child support; withhold
Page 109 and 110: Source: Laws 1985, Second Spec. Ses
Page 111 and 112: shall withhold for each notice the
Page 113 and 114: forward the child support payment.
Page 115 and 116: Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of
Page 117 and 118: Judgments (see also Jurisdiction) 2
Page 119 and 120: Source: Laws 1972, LB 820, § 5; La
Page 121 and 122: [J]urisdiction is the inherent powe
Page 123 and 124: A nonimmigrant alien authorized to
Page 125 and 126: In re Interest of Tamika S. et al.,
Page 127 and 128: action to certify the license holde
Page 129 and 130: NCP had no control as to when trust
Page 131 and 132: [T]he district court abused its dis
Page 133 and 134: Note: In response to a new federal
Page 135 and 136: (1) Child support orders in cases i
Page 137 and 138: §43-512.17. Title IV-D child suppo
Page 139 and 140: In the initial determination of chi
Page 141 and 142: The federal government provides Soc
Page 143 and 144: Material change in circumstances in
Page 145 and 146: Peter v. Peter, 262 Neb. 1017, 637
Page 147 and 148: See also: Wilkins v. Wilkins, 269 N
Page 149 and 150: Adoption/Modification of the Nebras
Page 151 and 152: A party seeking to modify a dissolu
Page 153 and 154:
(2)The department, through its agen
Page 155 and 156:
§ 43-1408.01 Notarized acknowledgm
Page 157 and 158:
(4) All judgments under this sectio
Page 159 and 160:
See also Shermanv. Neth, 283 Neb. 8
Page 161 and 162:
grounds of newly discovered evidenc
Page 163 and 164:
Fianna has resided with Jeffrey sin
Page 165 and 166:
State on Behalf of Hopkins v. Batt,
Page 167 and 168:
(4) . . . (a) If any case contains
Page 169 and 170:
CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL REC
Page 171 and 172:
To prevail on a motion to remove a
Page 173 and 174:
Cooper v. Cooper, 8 Neb. App. 532,
Page 175 and 176:
What God -- or the State -- has law
Page 177 and 178:
court should take into consideratio
Page 179 and 180:
Federal Express (FedEx): FedEx Prio
Page 181 and 182:
(c) PENALTY FOR MAKING OR USING FAL
Page 183 and 184:
Recipients who are married and file
Page 185 and 186:
provision for support is a part of
Page 187 and 188:
Material change in circumstances in
Page 189 and 190:
[A]limony should not be used to equ
Page 191 and 192:
contumacious, but it provides no re
Page 193 and 194:
parties will have to start over aga
Page 195 and 196:
state has and shall exercise contin
Page 197 and 198:
§ 42-735 Administrative enforcemen
Page 199 and 200:
(2) notify the nonregistering party
Page 201 and 202:
allegations of a petition invokes t
Page 203 and 204:
petitioner had failed to come to th
Page 205 and 206:
. . . have the force and effect of
Page 207 and 208:
caused or contributed to the cause
Page 209 and 210:
in determining the child support ob
Page 211 and 212:
Effective January 1, 2013, the maxi
Page 213 and 214:
§ 6-1521. Protection of personal a
Page 215 and 216:
In contrast to recent years, the 20
Page 217 and 218:
Military Retirement pay info - www.
Page 219 and 220:
Daily Legal Newswire - www.law.com/
Page 221:
Above All Else: Keep your sense of
show all

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?