Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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



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

decree in 2010, and convinces trial court to set aside the decree of paternity in the legal father in favor of DNA dad in 2011. Mom and Legal Dad appeal. There are over a dozen assignments of error from all 3 parties. Held: DNA dad sat on his rights and responsibilities too long. Equity will not let him intervene in a settled 10 year old paternity case. Case reversed. Whether a party has the right to intervene in a proceeding is a question of law. When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclusion reached by the trial court. The plain language of § 25-328 makes clear that intervention as a matter of right is allowed only before trial begins. Leave to intervene after the entry of a final decree is not allowable as a matter of right and should seldom be granted, but equity sometimes requires a departure from the general rule. In such a case, the burden of persuasion is a heavy one. § 25-2001 …(4) A district court may vacate or modify its own judgments or orders after the term at which such judgments or orders were made (a) for mistake, neglect, or omission of the clerk, or irregularity in obtaining a judgment or order . . . (c) for newly discovered material evidence which could neither have been discovered with reasonable diligence before trial nor have been discovered with reasonable diligence in time to move for a new trial . . . (f) for unavoidable casualty or misfortune, preventing the party from prosecuting or defending . . . . Todd cannot invoke § 25-2001(4) because § 25-328 does not permit intervention after the paternity decree was entered in 2001. Todd has not shown that the 2001 paternity decree was obtained by mistake, neglect, or irregularity. Amy’s pregnancy could have been discovered by reasonable diligence before trial or in time to move for a new trial, but Todd did not exercise reasonable diligence to discover that Amy was pregnant with his child. Todd has not shown there was unavoidable casualty or misfortune that prevented him from intervening before the 2001 decree. “A right to intervene should be asserted within a reasonable time. The applicant must be diligent and not guilty of unreasonable delay after knowledge of the suit.”… We have held that laches, or unreasonable delay, is a proper reason to deny intervention even prior to trial or judgment. To be entitled to vacate a judgment after term by an action in equity, the litigant must show that, without fault or laches on his part, he was prevented from proceeding under § 25-2001. equitable remedies are generally not available where there exists an adequate remedy at law. … <strong>Nebraska</strong> law provides specific statutory remedies to be utilized in establishing paternity and setting aside a paternity decree. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43- 1411(1) (Reissue 2008) authorizes the mother or “alleged father” of a child to bring a civil action to determine paternity “either during pregnancy or within four years after the child’s birth,” except in circumstances not applicable here. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43- 1412.01 (Reissue 2008) provides a remedy whereby “an individual” may ask a court to set aside a legal determination of paternity based upon the results of a scientifically reliable genetic test performed in accordance with certain statutes. To the extent there is conflict between two statutes on the same subject, the specific statute controls over the general statute. Under this well-established rule, the question of whether the paternity decree should be set aside must be determined under § 43-1412.01, applicable to setting aside a judgment of paternity, and not under the provisions of § 25-2001, applicable to vacating judgments in general. - 156 -
Fianna has resided with Jeffrey since 2004, and we can find no reason that would allow Todd to intervene and substitute himself as Fianna’s father. the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Todd to intervene and in setting aside the paternity decree of 2001. Jones v. Paulson, 261 Neb. 327, 622 N.W.2d 857 (2001) What’s in a name? Plenty of stuff to fight over, it seems… Citing § 71-640.03: (1) In any case in which paternity of a child is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, the surname of the child may be entered on the record the same as the surname of the father. (2) The surname of the child shall be the parents' prerogative, except that the Department of Health and Human Services Finance and <strong>Support</strong> shall not accept a birth certificate with a child's surname that implies any obscene or objectionable words or abbreviations. In a paternity action, a court, in deciding whether a child's surname should be changed to the father's surname under § 71-640.03(1), must consider the best interests of the child regarding a change of name. Mooney v. Duer, 1 Neb. App. 84, 487 N.W.2d 575 (1992) In this case the state filed the petition alleging paternity before the results of genetic testing (which was already in progress) came back. The Mom was inconsistent and vague in her assertions that the man named as the father actually was. One other man had apparently been excluded as the father before the state went after the defendant. The testing showed that the alleged father was not the biological father of the child. The state here was forced to pay the alleged father’s attorney’s fees. The State must first have evidence of corroboration of the mother’s claim of paternity in order to file a complaint alleging paternity. An example of corroboration would be favorable genetic testing results, or a written acknowledgment of paternity. A failure of the State to have corroborating evidence before filing will constitute a frivolous lawsuit, entitling the alleged father to the payment of his attorney fees by the State. under § 43-1412, the term “frivolous” connotes a paternity suit brought for an improper motive or premised upon a legal position so wholly without merit as to be without rational argument in the law or evidence. [T]he fact that the mother can testify on the issue of who fathered her child does not resolve the issue of whether this is a frivolous lawsuit. However, § 43-1412 and pertinent case law require that the mother's testimony be corroborated. See Gregory v. Davis, 214 Neb. 408, 334 N.W.2d 1 (1983). We are affirming the award because the State’s legal position in filing the paternity suit, which can only be characterized as an “errant shot in the dark,” was wholly without merit and therefore frivolous. See R.R.S. §43-1412: [i]f it is not determined in the proceeding that the alleged father is actually the father of the child, the court shall, if it finds that the action was frivolous, award court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the alleged father, with such costs and fees to be paid by the plaintiff. In Lutheran Medical Center v. City of Omaha, 229 Neb. 802, 429 N.W.2d 347 (1988), the court had to define the term "frivolous" as a prerequisite for the - 157 -
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 and 102:
Rouse v. Rouse, 18 Neb. App. 128, 7
Page 103 and 104:
There is a presumption that income
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: grounds of newly discovered evidenc
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?