Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

See § 4-212 of the Child Support Guidelines
Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 276 Neb. 653, 756 N.W.2d 522 (2008)
In re Interest of Eric O. & Shane O., 9 Neb. App. 676, 617 N.W.2d 824 (2000)
[But also see Cesar C. v. Alicia L., 281 Neb. 979, 800 N.W.2d 249 (July 2011) for a
limitation on this doctrine]
“Parental Preference Doctrine and Fitness or Forfeiture”
The father’s natural right to the custody of his children trumps the interest of a
grandparent to the parent-child relationship and the preferences of the child. This is
true even when the father has been previously absent from the child’s life and owes
thousands of dollars in back child support, and even when the child had been living
with the maternal grandparents and the child’s mother, prior to the mother’s death.
Nebraska law creates a presumption in favor of child custody with a
biological parent as against an unrelated third party.
Although the question present in every child custody case is the best interests of the
child, a court cannot overlook or disregard that the best interests standard is subject
to the overriding recognition that the relationship between parent and child is
constitutionally protected.
The courts may not properly deprive a parent of the custody of a minor child unless it
is affirmatively shown that such parent is unfit to perform the duties imposed by
the relationship or has forfeited that right.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that due process of law requires a parent to be
granted a hearing on his or her fitness as a parent before being deprived of custody.
And the right of a parent to the care, custody, and management of his or her children
is considered one of the most basic rights of man.
Parental preference means that absent unfitness or forfeiture, the natural parent
prevails against an unrelated person in a custody dispute. … While appellate courts
have often spoken of a natural parent’s superior rights as against those of an
“unrelated” person in various articulations of the parental preference doctrine, this is
somewhat misstated. The reality is that anyone other than a natural parent is
“unrelated,” even though the person seeking custody may be family.
Gartner v. Hume, 12 Neb. App. 741, 686 N.W.2d 58 (2004)
Child Custody. To prevail on a motion to remove a minor child to another jurisdiction,
the custodial parent must first satisfy the court that he or she has a legitimate reason
for leaving the state. After clearing that threshold, the custodial parent must next
demonstrate that it is in the child’s best interests to continue living with him or her.
[See also the Removal of Minor Child from Nebraska section.]
Grange v. Grange, 15 Neb. App. 297, 725 N.W.2d 853 (2006)
Ordinarily, custody of a minor child will not be modified unless there has been a
material change in circumstances showing that the custodial parent is unfit or that
the best interests of the child require such action. Heistand v. Heistand, 267 Neb.
300, 673 N.W.2d 541 (2004).
A decree of divorce, insofar as minor children are concerned, is never final in the
sense that it cannot be changed, but is subject to review at any time in the light of
changing conditions. See Matson v. Matson, 175 Neb. 60, 120 N.W.2d 364 (1963).
- 46 -