Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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



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

qualify for government cash benefits, which allows a single parent not to have to work. Free universal health insurance is also the norm in many other nations (lucky them!). Nebraska has signed reciprocity agreements for the establishment and enforcement of child support orders with the following nations: Australia, Canada (the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Newfoundland/Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Yukon), the Czech Republic, El Salvador, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, portions of Mexico (27 individual states), The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Sweden, Scotland, Switzerland , The United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Wales) and Yap. (Also see this State Dept. Link; note that it admits it may be out-of-date.) Working international support cases with countries not on this list is also possible if no one objects and you obtain the cooperation of the other nation’s child support system. An extremely useful 77 page guide for workers/attorneys who share cases with Canada may be found at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2011/im-11-01a.pdf In addition, the Canadian Department of Justice has a useful link describing their child support laws, written in layman’s terminology: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-fea/sup-pen/index.html Note: Additional resources relating to International Child Support (Maintenance), including a treatise on currency conversion, and a PowerPoint presentation on International Child Support, may be obtained by emailing Bill MacKenzie at Billm @sarpy.com. II. Full Faith & Credit issues Many European nations (plus Canada, Argentina and parts of Mexico) apply their marriage laws without regard to gender (the number of nations stands at 14, with recent additions of New Zealand, France and Uruguay in 2013). Same sex divorces will ultimately find their way into the mix of cases we are asked to enforce. See the Same Sex Marriage subheading for more information in this regard. III. The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support & Other Forms of Family Maintenance In 2007 an International Protocol affecting maintenance for children was concluded by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The organization is described as being “The World Organisation for Cross-border Co-operation in Civil and Commercial Matters.” You can read a helpful overview of the organization here as well as their FAQ page. Of particular interest to the child support community would be the following agreements/documents, concluded in November 2007, and effective January 1, 2013: - 162 -
CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY OF CHILD SUPPORT AND OTHER FORMS OF FAMILY MAINTENANCE, (PDF Version); An Outline of the above document; and the PROTOCOL ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS (PDF version) The United States sent a delegation to The Hague to work on drafting the Convention, and is a signatory to the Protocol and Convention. The US government plans to utilize the convention to assist local CSE offices in working international cases with other signatory nations (40 in total as of 2013), however the treaty has yet to be approved by Congress. The individual states will also have to update their UIFSA laws to dovetail with the provisions contained in the Convention, before it will be enacted. A list of signatory nations to this convention includes the following states (as of March 2013): Argentina Australia Belgium Bulgaria Canada + Quebec Chile People's Republic of China, (Hong Kong and Macao) Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dominican Republic Estonia European Community Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Japan Latvia Lithuania Malaysia Mexico Monaco Netherlands New Zealand Norway Paraguay Poland Portugal Romania Slovak Republic Slovenia South Africa Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States IV. Currency Conversion issues Federal court rulings have long held that all judgments set by courts in the United States should to be paid in dollars, and not in foreign currency. This solves some potential problems, but can lead to other issues. When we register foreign child support orders for enforcement, for example, we are forced to convert the original judgment stated in euros, pound sterling or zlotys to dollars. Many resources on the Internet offer currency exchange information, including historical data. My favorite for ease of use is the Bank of Canada site at www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/exchform.html One problem you may encounter (this author did) is when the foreign jurisdiction requires periodic updating of the currency exchange rates in their order. Germany requires annual adjustments, for example, and this may be the preferred way to go (some jurisdictions require monthly recalculation of conversion rates, and this can be extremely cumbersome). In a UIFSA registration case you should take care to address this issue in the original order confirming registration or risk having your order locked in at a set dollar ($) amount for the entire term of the order. Of course, sometimes periodic adjustments will work to the benefit of the person paying support. No one can tell at the time the order is registered which way the exchange rate will trend in coming years. (If you could you would be doing that for a living, rather than enforcing child support orders!) There should be no need to “modify” a support order each time an adjustment in the conversion rate is necessary. Just spell out in the original order in your court that there will be periodic currency conversion adjustments (spell out when those will occur), and the manner in which those adjustments will occur. You may need to submit to the clerk of court for filing a statement of the changed currency conversion ratio each time a conversion is to take place. - 163 -
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 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: (4) . . . (a) If any case contains
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?