Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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



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

the obligation of support. The obligor’s fulfillment of the duty of support established by that order precludes imposition of a further obligation of support by a tribunal of this state. Despite a basic difference in the nature of the case, we rely upon the decision in Groseth v. Groseth, 257 Neb. 525, 600 N .W.2d 159 (1999), for guiding principles. … First, we properly look to the official comments contained in a model act on which a <strong>Nebraska</strong> statute or series of statutes was patterned for some guidance in an effort to ascertain the intent of the legislation. Id. Second, dicta in Groseth supports our interpretation. Third, a court must look to a statute’s purpose and give to the statute a reasonable construction which best achieves that purpose, rather than a construction which would defeat it. A comment to the 2001 UIFSA amendments…(states): The fact that the State of the new controlling order has a different duration of for [sic] child support is specifically declared to be irrelevant by UIFSA. … This comment refers to the 2001 amendment to UIFSA § 611 adding a new section (d), which was, in turn, adopted essentially verbatim by the <strong>Nebraska</strong> Legislature as the current § 42-746(d). Section 42-476(c) was also amended to expressly refer to the duration of the obligation of support as an aspect that cannot be modified under the law of the issuing state. [T]he duration of the support obligation remains fixed despite the subsequent residence of all parties in a new state with a different duration of child support. Unclean Hands (see also Modification) Marr v. Marr, Jr., 245 Neb. 655, 515 N.W.2d 118 (1994) Facts: Obligated parent/self employed paving contractor tried to get his child support modified and reduced, but evidence showed he owed $14,000 in past due support and had made no real effort to pay support despite earning a modest income. Held: Unclean hands prevents the court from modifying his support order. "He who seeks equity must do equity" and … a party seeking equitable relief must come into court with "clean hands Had appellant presented a record where he consistently attempted to discharge his duty to support his child, in an amount reflecting a bona fide effort to perform his parental (and court-ordered) duty of support, a different case might be presented Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 241 Neb. 43, 486 N.W.2d 215 (1992) Facts: Noncustodial father, after having been found to be in willful contempt of court for failure to make child support payments for his two minor children, filed an application to modify the divorce decree. In the application, he alleged that he was not the father of the older child and sought a paternity determination as well as custody of the younger child. The mother of the children successfully contended that the application should be dismissed on the ground that the - 196 -
petitioner had failed to come to the court with clean hands by virtue of the contempt order and child support arrearage. In affirming the district court’s dismissal of the application, we determined that it was supported by a record which showed that the “[father’s] conduct since the dissolution of the marriage has been to pay no child support unless compelled by the court” and that it was his “flagrant and continuing contempt of court” which precluded him from obtaining relief. State o/b/o Pathammavong v. Pathammavong, 268 Neb. 1, 679 N.W.2d 749 (2004) When a party owes past-due child support, the failure to pay must be found to be a willful failure to pay, in spite of an ability to pay, before an application to modify child support may be dismissed on the basis of unclean hands. Voichoskie v. Voichoskie, 215 Neb. 775, 340 N.W.2d 442 (1983) Conduct which forms a basis for a finding that a party has “unclean hands” must be willful in nature. Citing 1 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (3d ed.) sec. 397: ‘Whenever a party, who, as actor, seeks to set the judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, or good faith, or other equitable principle, in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right, or to award him any remedy.’ Visitation Credits § 4-210 of the guidelines provides in part: Visitation or parenting time adjustments or direct cost sharing should be specified in the support order. An adjustment in child support may be made at the discretion of the court when visitation or parenting time substantially exceeds alternating weekends and holidays and 28 days or more in any 90-day period. During visitation or parenting time periods of 28 days or more in any 90-day period, support payments may be reduced by up to 80 percent. The amount of any reduction for extended parenting time shall be specified in the court’s order and shall be presumed to apply to the months designated in the order. An online Visitation Credit form is available at: www.sarpy.com/childsupport/documents/AffidavitforSummerVisitationCredit07.pdf Miscellaneous Part I: Cases addressing Miscellaneous Civil, Technical & “Housekeeping” Related rules and issues Andersen v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 249 Neb. 169, 542 N.W.2d 703 (1996), Unless otherwise provided by order of the district court, a term of court begins on January 1 of a given year and ends on December 31 of that same year. - 197 -
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 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: allegations of a petition invokes t
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?