Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Remarriage
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
- Albert Einstein
§ 42-358.04. Delinquent permanent child support payments; remarriage; effect.
Remarriage of the person entitled to collect under a permanent child support decree shall not
work to cut off delinquent payments due under such decree.
Source: Laws 1975, LB 212, § 6
Hildebrand v. Hildebrand, 239 Neb. 605, 477 N.W.2d 1 (1991)
In case this point wasn’t self evident….
Citing In re Marriage of Root, 774 S.W.2d 521 (Mo. App. 1989):
It would be absurd to hold that once parents remarry each other and the
family is again intact and residing in the same household, the former
noncustodial parent must pay future installments of child support to the
other parent per the past divorce decree. That is to say, the remarriage
should terminate the former noncustodial parent's duty to pay any child
support that would have become due after the remarriage.
[O]nce parties remarry, the former child support order is moot, while any
deficiencies prior to the marriage are collectible.
Removal of minor child from Nebraska
From this author’s many years of experience, it seems that a great many custodial parents
simply don’t understand that once a Nebraska court takes jurisdiction over their minor child(ren)
and sets an order of custody, visitation and/or child support, the minor child may not be removed
from Nebraska (other than for short vacations and the like) without first securing the permission of
the court. Permission is not an automatic thing, either…. See below. Courts take a very dim view
of parents who secrete their children out of Nebraska without first receiving court permission. Child
support may be judicially halted when such incidents are brought to the attention of the court. It is
imperative for child support attorneys to convey this information to custodial parents. As an officer
of the court, a IV-D attorney should consider whether to participate in a request to modify support
when it is discovered that a child has been removed from the court’s jurisdiction without
authorization.
Note, this set of rules only applies to “custodial” parents. Parents who have possession of their
child but not legal custody are not governed accordingly.
Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999)
Of all the disputes that courts are called upon to resolve, parental relocation cases
such as this one are among the most complicated and troubling. That is because the
interests of the custodial parent, who often has legitimate, sound reasons for
wanting to move to a distant state, are mutually exclusive to the interests of the
noncustodial parent, who commonly has a compelling desire to continue frequent,
regular contact with the child. Complicating matters further, courts must ultimately
perform the difficult task of weighing the best interests of the child, which may or
may not be consistent with the personal interests of either or both parents.
- 164 -