Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 2202, 68 L.Ed.2d 627 (1981)
‣ The denial of the aid of a genetic test to indigent defendants in state-initiated
paternity suits violates due process.
Mathews v. Mathews, 267 Neb. 604, 676 N.W.2d 42 (2004)
A finding of indigency is a matter within the initial discretion of the trial court, and
such a finding will not be set aside on appeal in the absence of an abuse of
discretion by the trial court.
Seymour v. Froelich, 236 Neb. 808, 464 N.W.2d 310 (1991)
Citing: Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 108 at 321 (1971)
a “judgment for the payment of money will not be enforced in other states unless
the amount to be paid has been finally determined under the local law of the
state of rendition.”
State v. Yelli, 247 Neb. 785, 530 N.W.2d 250 (1995)
Because the burdens of proof would be the same, a judgment in a civil paternity
adjudication is res judicata as between the same parties in a subsequent civil
action such as a support modification proceeding.
Evidence of prior civil adjudications has been admitted in a subsequent criminal
nonsupport proceeding to establish the defendant’s obligation to support his
child. The prior civil adjudications are admitted as nonconclusive evidence of the
defendant’s support obligation.
But: The judgment in a civil paternity action is not binding under the doctrines of
res judicata or collateral estoppel in a subsequent criminal case.
Prior paternity adjudications lack reliability if they do not affirmatively show that
the alleged father was represented by or waived his right to counsel.
Both federal and state due process dictate that an indigent defendant in a stateassisted
civil paternity action has the right to the services of appointed counsel.
* Query…what do you do when the alleged father defaults in his paternity case? Did he
waive his right to counsel?
Contempt
What follows is a discussion of statutory and case law on CIVIL contempt. Almost
exclusively when an obligated parent (OP) is brought into court for nonpayment of child support
it is on a civil petition for contempt, rather than the more harsh criminal contempt. The OP is
said to “hold the keys to the jail cell in his hands” and be able to release him/her self upon the
mere payment of the support that is owed as set forth in the court order. Notwithstanding this
fact, civil contempt has quasi criminal elements, as it can, and often does ultimately result in the
incarceration of the OP. For this reason, a court that accepts an admission of civil contempt
from an OP must produce a record that the admission is entered voluntarily, that the OP
understands the nature of the admission, and its consequences, including the possible penalty.
Analogizing an admission of civil contempt to a court accepting a guilty plea in a criminal
proceeding is appropriate, and the colloquy between the court and the OP should be similar to
that in a criminal plea proceeding. See State of Nebraska v. Benson, 199 Neb. 549, 260
N.W.2d 208 (1977)
- 35 -