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.
ights of visitation. Later mother came clean with ex-husband, because she married boyfriend.<br />
She wanted child support stopped, as well as visitation. Ex-husband refused to go along, citing<br />
his bond with child. Genetic tests showed 2 nd husband was bio dad.<br />
Under the doctrine of res judicata, does a finding of paternity in a dissolution decree<br />
prevent the parties to the decree from relitigating paternity? We answer this<br />
question: Yes.<br />
Res judicata bars relitigation of any right, fact, or matter directly addressed or<br />
necessarily included in a former adjudication if (1) the former judgment was<br />
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the former judgment was a final<br />
judgment, (3) the former judgment was on the merits, and (4) the same parties or<br />
their privies were involved in both actions.<br />
A fundamental fact necessary to sustain an order of child support is paternity by the<br />
man judicially obligated to pay such support.<br />
Kiplinger v. <strong>Nebraska</strong> Dept. of Nat. Resources, 282 Neb. 237, 803 N.W.2d 28 (Sept.<br />
2011)<br />
Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, an issue of<br />
ultimate fact that was determined by a valid and final judgment cannot be litigated<br />
again between the same parties or their privities in any future litigation.<br />
Collateral estoppel is applicable where (1) an identical issue was decided in a prior<br />
action, (2) the prior action resulted in a judgment on the merits which was final, (3)<br />
the party against whom the doctrine is to be applied was a party or was in privity with<br />
a party to the prior action, and (4) there was an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate<br />
the issue in the prior action.<br />
McCarson v. McCarson, 263 Neb. 534, 641 N.W.2d 62 (2002)<br />
Facts: Wife got pregnant during her marriage by a paramour. Later she filed for divorce while<br />
husband was overseas with the US Military. He filed an appearance and 61 days later the court<br />
issued the divorce and ordered him to pay child support for the child. Later wife admitted he<br />
was not the bio father, and he filed to modify the decree and terminate the support order.<br />
Mother, who’s uncleanliness extended also to her hands, opposed the termination of support on<br />
grounds of res judicatta. But ex-husband was not without fault of his own…<br />
[U]nder the traditional rule of res judicata, any rights, facts, or matter in issue<br />
directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action<br />
before a competent court in which a judgment or decree is rendered upon the<br />
merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be<br />
litigated by the parties and privies. Gruber v. Gruber, 261 Neb. 914, 626 N.W.2d<br />
582 (2001).<br />
[T]he paternity findings in a dissolution decree constitute a final judgment.<br />
§ 25-2001 states that “[a] district court shall have power to vacate or modify its<br />
own judgments or orders after the term at which such judgments or orders were<br />
made. . . (4) for fraud practiced by the successful party in obtaining the judgment<br />
or order.”<br />
[I]n order to set aside a judgment after term on the ground of fraud practiced by<br />
the successful party, as provided for in § 25-2001(4), the petitioning party must<br />
prove that due diligence was exercised by him or her at the former trial and that<br />
the failure to secure a just decision was not attributable to his or her fault or<br />
negligence.<br />
- 159 -