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.
support may be judicially halted when such incidents are brought to the attention of the court. It is<br />
imperative for child support attorneys to convey this information to custodial parents. As an officer<br />
of the court, a IV-D attorney should consider whether to participate in a request to modify support<br />
when it is discovered that a child has been removed from the court’s jurisdiction without<br />
authorization.<br />
Note, this set of rules only applies to “custodial” parents. Parents who have possession of their<br />
child but not legal custody are not governed accordingly.<br />
Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999)<br />
Of all the disputes that courts are called upon to resolve, parental relocation cases<br />
such as this one are among the most complicated and troubling. That is because the<br />
interests of the custodial parent, who often has legitimate, sound reasons for<br />
wanting to move to a distant state, are mutually exclusive to the interests of the<br />
noncustodial parent, who commonly has a compelling desire to continue frequent,<br />
regular contact with the child. Complicating matters further, courts must ultimately<br />
perform the difficult task of weighing the best interests of the child, which may or<br />
may not be consistent with the personal interests of either or both parents.<br />
To prevail on a motion to remove a minor child, the custodial parent must first satisfy<br />
the court that he or she has a legitimate reason for leaving the state. . . . After<br />
clearing that threshold, the custodial parent must next demonstrate that it is in the<br />
child’s best interests to continue living with him or her. . . . Of course, whether a<br />
proposed move is in the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration.<br />
In determining whether removal to another jurisdiction is in the child’s best interests,<br />
the trial court considers (1) each parent’s motives for seeking or opposing the move;<br />
(2) the potential that the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the child and<br />
the custodial parent; and (3) the impact such a move will have on contact between<br />
the child and the noncustodial parent, when viewed in the light of reasonable<br />
visitation. See McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 264 Neb. 232, 647 N.W.2d 577 (2002).<br />
Gartner v. Hume, 12 Neb. App. 741, 686 N.W.2d 58 (2004)<br />
To prevail on a motion to remove a minor child to another jurisdiction, the custodial<br />
parent must first satisfy the court that he or she has a legitimate reason for leaving<br />
the state. After clearing that threshold, the custodial parent must next demonstrate<br />
that it is in the child’s best interests to continue living with him or her.<br />
Hibbard v. Hibbard, 230 Neb. 364, 366, 431 N.W.2d 637, 639 (1988).<br />
<strong>Child</strong>ren have the right to be treated as interested and affected persons and not as<br />
pawns or chattel of either or both parents.<br />
Shaffer v. Shaffer, 231 Neb. 910, 438 N.W.2d 507 (1989)<br />
Generally, siblings should not be separated.<br />
Res Judicata & Paternity<br />
(a/k/a “My two dads”)<br />
(see also Collateral Estoppel)<br />
DeVaux v. DeVaux, 245 Neb. 611, 621-22, 514 N.W.2d 640, 647 (1994)<br />
Facts: Wife gave birth during marriage to child fathered by a boyfriend. She did not inform her<br />
husband. Parties later divorced and husband was ordered to pay child support, and was given<br />
- 158 -