Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Despite a basic difference in the nature of the case, we rely upon the decision in<br />
Groseth v. Groseth, 257 Neb. 525, 600 N .W.2d 159 (1999), for guiding principles.<br />
… First, we properly look to the official comments contained in a model act on which<br />
a <strong>Nebraska</strong> statute or series of statutes was patterned for some guidance in an effort<br />
to ascertain the intent of the legislation. Id. Second, dicta in Groseth supports our<br />
interpretation. Third, a court must look to a statute’s purpose and give to the statute<br />
a reasonable construction which best achieves that purpose, rather than a<br />
construction which would defeat it.<br />
A comment to the 2001 UIFSA amendments…(states): The fact that the State of the<br />
new controlling order has a different duration of for [sic] child support is specifically<br />
declared to be irrelevant by UIFSA. … This comment refers to the 2001 amendment<br />
to UIFSA § 611 adding a new section (d), which was, in turn, adopted essentially<br />
verbatim by the <strong>Nebraska</strong> Legislature as the current § 42-746(d). Section 42-476(c)<br />
was also amended to expressly refer to the duration of the obligation of support as<br />
an aspect that cannot be modified under the law of the issuing state.<br />
[T]he duration of the support obligation remains fixed despite the subsequent<br />
residence of all parties in a new state with a different duration of child support.<br />
Unclean Hands<br />
(see also Modification)<br />
Marr v. Marr, Jr., 245 Neb. 655, 515 N.W.2d 118 (1994)<br />
Facts: Obligated parent/self employed paving contractor tried to get his child support modified<br />
and reduced, but evidence showed he owed $14,000 in past due support and had made no real<br />
effort to pay support despite earning a modest income. Held: Unclean hands prevents the<br />
court from modifying his support order.<br />
"He who seeks equity must do equity" and … a party seeking equitable relief must<br />
come into court with "clean hands<br />
Had appellant presented a record where he consistently attempted to discharge his<br />
duty to support his child, in an amount reflecting a bona fide effort to perform his<br />
parental (and court-ordered) duty of support, a different case might be presented<br />
Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 241 Neb. 43, 486 N.W.2d 215 (1992)<br />
Facts: Noncustodial father, after having been found to be in willful contempt of court for failure to<br />
make child support payments for his two minor children, filed an application to modify the<br />
divorce decree. In the application, he alleged that he was not the father of the older child and<br />
sought a paternity determination as well as custody of the younger child. The mother of the<br />
children successfully contended that the application should be dismissed on the ground that the<br />
petitioner had failed to come to the court with clean hands by virtue of the contempt order and<br />
child support arrearage.<br />
In affirming the district court’s dismissal of the application, we determined that it was<br />
supported by a record which showed that the “[father’s] conduct since the dissolution<br />
- 187 -