Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

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.
To prevail on a motion to remove a minor child, the custodial parent must first satisfy
the court that he or she has a legitimate reason for leaving the state. . . . After
clearing that threshold, the custodial parent must next demonstrate that it is in the
child’s best interests to continue living with him or her. . . . Of course, whether a
proposed move is in the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration.
In determining whether removal to another jurisdiction is in the child’s best interests,
the trial court considers (1) each parent’s motives for seeking or opposing the move;
(2) the potential that the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the child and
the custodial parent; and (3) the impact such a move will have on contact between
the child and the noncustodial parent, when viewed in the light of reasonable
visitation. See McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 264 Neb. 232, 647 N.W.2d 577 (2002).
Gartner v. Hume, 12 Neb. App. 741, 686 N.W.2d 58 (2004)
To prevail on a motion to remove a minor child to another jurisdiction, the custodial
parent must first satisfy the court that he or she has a legitimate reason for leaving
the state. After clearing that threshold, the custodial parent must next demonstrate
that it is in the child’s best interests to continue living with him or her.
Hibbard v. Hibbard, 230 Neb. 364, 366, 431 N.W.2d 637, 639 (1988).
Children have the right to be treated as interested and affected persons and not as
pawns or chattel of either or both parents.
Shaffer v. Shaffer, 231 Neb. 910, 438 N.W.2d 507 (1989)
Generally, siblings should not be separated.
Res Judicata & Paternity
(a/k/a “My two dads”)
(see also Collateral Estoppel)
DeVaux v. DeVaux, 245 Neb. 611, 621-22, 514 N.W.2d 640, 647 (1994)
Facts: Wife gave birth during marriage to child fathered by a boyfriend. She did not inform her
husband. Parties later divorced and husband was ordered to pay child support, and was given
- 158 -