Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Cooper v. Cooper, 8 Neb. App. 532, 538, 598 N.W.2d 474, 478 (1999)<br />
In the absence of a showing of bad faith, it is an abuse of discretion for a court to<br />
award retroactive child support when the evidence shows the obligated parent<br />
does not have the ability to pay the retroactive support and still meet current<br />
obligations. Cited with approval in Wilkins v. Wilkins, 269 Neb. 937 (2005); Emery<br />
v. Moffett, 269 Neb. 867 (2005); and Henke v. Guerrero, 13 Neb. App. 337 (2005)<br />
“The ability to pay is a paramount factor.”<br />
Emery v. Moffett, 269 Neb. 867, 697 N.W.2d 249 (2005)<br />
It is improper for a court, in determining whether to order retro child support, to find<br />
that a non custodial parent cannot afford to pay retro support now, but nonetheless<br />
order him to pay retro support, but defer the time he has to begin paying it until after<br />
the child emancipates.<br />
Henke v. Guerrero, 13 Neb. App. 337, 692 N.W.2d 762 (2005)<br />
What happens when “there is not enough money” to go around?<br />
In the absence of a showing of bad faith, it is an abuse of discretion for a court to<br />
award retroactive child support when the evidence shows the obligated parent<br />
does not have the ability to pay the retroactive support and still meet current<br />
obligations.<br />
The paramount concern and question in determining child support is the best<br />
interests of the child<br />
Accordingly, the inability to pay retroactive support in a paternity case does not<br />
obviate the obligation, but, rather, the consequences of such inability are to be<br />
handled in the context of the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Guidelines, which are<br />
applicable to paternity actions. (i.e. minimum support should be set)<br />
The father’s inability to pay retroactive support means that after assessing the<br />
equities of the case, the court can deviate from the child support guidelines in setting<br />
retroactive support, and because it is an equity matter, the court can also order a<br />
payment plan for the retroactive support.<br />
Lucero v. Lucero, 16 Neb. App. 706, 750 N.W.2d 377 (2008)<br />
Absent equities to the contrary, the modification of child support orders should be<br />
applied retroactively to the first day of the month following the filing date of the<br />
application for modification.<br />
In the absence of a showing of bad faith, it is an abuse of discretion for a court to<br />
award retroactive child support when the evidence shows the obligated parent does<br />
not have the ability to pay the retroactive support and still meet current obligations.<br />
Matchett v. Dunkle, 244 Neb. 639, 508 N.W.2d 580 (1993)<br />
Opens the door to retroactive child support in paternity cases.<br />
Sylvis v. Walling, 248 Neb. 168, 532 N.W.2d 312 (1995)<br />
[A] cause of action for the retroactive support of a child born out of wedlock<br />
belongs not to the mother, but to the child.<br />
[A]n obligation for retroactive child support is not a debt.<br />
- 167 -