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.
force of res judicata; modification will be considered only when there has been a<br />
change in circumstances since the last request for modification. But if there has<br />
been no change, modification is not justified, because the request is essentially the<br />
same as the last request.<br />
[A]ny change in circumstances occurring since the first [unsuccessful] modification<br />
proceeding should have been compared to the original decree when determining<br />
whether the change in circumstances was a material and substantial change<br />
warranting modification. Any changes in … circumstances that occurred prior to the<br />
first modification proceeding are settled, and the doctrine of res judicata prevents the<br />
district court from considering any change based on those circumstances.<br />
Muller v. Muller, 3 Neb. App. 159, 524 N.W.2d 78 (1994)<br />
Knaub v. Knaub, 245 Neb. 172, 512 N.W.2d 124 (1994)<br />
Modification of the amount of child support payments is an issue entrusted to the<br />
discretion of the trial court, and although, on appeal, the issue is reviewed de novo<br />
on the record, the decision of the trial court will be affirmed absent an abuse of<br />
discretion.<br />
A party seeking to modify child support must show a material change in<br />
circumstances which has occurred subsequent to the entry of the original order or<br />
previous modification and was not contemplated when the most recent support<br />
order was entered.<br />
Among the factors to be considered in determining whether a material change in<br />
circumstances has occurred are changes in the financial position of the obligor<br />
parent, the needs of the children, good or bad faith motive of the obligor parent in<br />
sustaining a reduction in income, and whether the change is temporary or<br />
permanent.<br />
The paramount concern and question in determining child support is the best<br />
interests of the child.<br />
Murphy v. Murphy, 17 Neb. App. 279 (2008)<br />
Facts: Father was employed for $70,000 a year at time of divorce. He was also on<br />
disciplinary probation and “skating on thin ice” at that time. Within a year he got into more<br />
trouble at work and resigned his job in the face of being fired. He could not find other<br />
employment paying more than $35,000 per year, so filed to modify his child support and<br />
alimony. The District court sided with father, but the Court of Appeals reversed.<br />
Matthew was clearly involved in “employee misconduct”. [A] request to modify<br />
child support will be denied if the change in financial circumstances is due to fault or<br />
voluntary wastage or dissipation of one’s talents and assets. … We reverse and<br />
vacate the district court’s downward modification of Matthew’s child support and<br />
alimony obligation on the ground of Matthew’s reduced earnings.<br />
Noonan v. Noonan, 261 Neb. 552, 624 N.W.2d 314 (2001);<br />
Moore v. Bauer, 11 Neb. App. 572, 657 N.W.2d 25 (2003)<br />
Modification of child support payments is entrusted to the trial court’s discretion, and<br />
although, on appeal, the issue is reviewed de novo on the record, the decision of the<br />
trial court will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.<br />
The rule, absent equities to the contrary, should generally be that the modification<br />
of a child support order should be applied retroactively to the first day of the<br />
month following the filing date of the application for modification.<br />
- 132 -