Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

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 Nebraska 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 Nebraska 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
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
- 187 -