Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Clearly, retroactive support is included in the “support” that the trial court may order
under §43-1412 (3).
Hildebrand v. Hildebrand, 239 Neb. 605, 477 N.W.2d 1 (1991)
In case this point wasn’t self evident….
Citing In re Marriage of Root, 774 S.W.2d 521 (Mo. App. 1989):
It would be absurd to hold that once parents remarry each other and the
family is again intact and residing in the same household, the former
noncustodial parent must pay future installments of child support to the
other parent per the past divorce decree. That is to say, the remarriage
should terminate the former noncustodial parent’s duty to pay any child
support that would have become due after the remarriage.
[O]nce parties remarry, the former child support order is moot, while any
deficiencies prior to the marriage are collectible.
Jensen v. Jensen, 275 Neb. 921, 750 N.W.2d 335 (2008)
[W]e have never held that the absence of a child support worksheet provides a
basis for a collateral attack on a final judgment. Once the [child support] order
became final, even without a worksheet, it was enforceable.
[P]ublic policy forbids enforcement of a private agreement that purports to
discharge a parent’s liability for child support, if the agreement does not adequately
provide for the child.
Johnson v. Johnson, 215 Neb. 689, 340 N.W.2d 393 (1983)
Where an award for child support is made in one amount for each succeeding month
for more than one child, it will be presumed to continue in force for the full amount
until the youngest child reaches his majority. The proper remedy, if this be deemed
unjust, is to seek a modification of the decree in the court which entered it, on the
basis of the changed circumstances.
A single amount to be paid periodically for the support of more than one child is not
subject to an automatic pro rata reduction.
Mehne v. Hess, 4 Neb. App. 935, 553 N.W.2d 482 (1996)
The trial court’s award of child support after a determination of paternity will not be
disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Smith, 231 Neb. 740,
437 N.W.2d 803 (1989); Hanson v. Rockwell, 206 Neb. 299, 292 N.W.2d 786
(1980).
Muller v. Muller, 3 Neb. App. 159, 524 N.W.2d 78 (1994)
The paramount concern and question in determining child support, whether in an
initial marital dissolution action or in proceedings for modification of a decree, is the
best interests of the child. See also Phelps v. Phelps, 239 Neb. 618, 477
N.W.2d 552 (1991)
Neb. Rev. Stat. §42-371(5) authorizes the posting of security to insure the payment
of child support. Reasonable security to insure payment of child support should be
invoked only when compelling circumstances require it.
The fact that a custodial parent is not ordered to remit a monthly dollar amount for
child support does not release him or her from the obligation to contribute to the
support of the children. Earning capacity of each parent, and not merely the actual
- 20 -