Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Deterding v. Deterding, 18 Neb. App. 922, 797 N.W.2d 33 (April 2011)<br />
Facts: <strong>Child</strong> conceived through artificial insemination during the marriage. Husband files for<br />
divorce and claims he is not the bio father, so he shouldn’t have to pay support. Mom agrees.<br />
Court of Appeals does not.<br />
We are not bound by the parties’ agreement regarding child custody and alimony.<br />
Parties in a proceeding to dissolve a marriage cannot control the disposition of<br />
matters pertaining to minor children by agreement. Weinand v. Weinand, 260 Neb.<br />
146, 616 N.W.2d 1 (2000).<br />
If [the husband] consented to [the wife] being artificially inseminated, he made a<br />
decision to bring a child into the world, and he should not be permitted to abandon<br />
his responsibility to that child simply because he is not the biological father.<br />
Both the Legislature and the <strong>Nebraska</strong> Supreme Court have recognized that there<br />
are situations where a person who is not a biological parent may still have a<br />
responsibility to support a child.<br />
if [husband] knew and consented to [wife’s] being artificially inseminated, he has<br />
some responsibility to support the child even if he is not her biological parent.<br />
the term “parent” is not specifically defined in the statutes.<br />
[Husband] still may be responsible for supporting the child if he has assumed, in loco<br />
parentis, the obligations incident to a parental relationship.<br />
The <strong>Nebraska</strong> Supreme Court has held that a person standing in loco parentis to a<br />
child is one who has put himself or herself in the situation of a lawful parent by<br />
assuming the obligations incident to the parental relationship, without going through<br />
the formalities necessary to a legal adoption, and the rights, duties, and liabilities of<br />
such person are the same as those of the lawful parent. Weinand v. Weinand, supra;<br />
Hickenbottom v. Hickenbottom, 239 Neb. 579, 477 N.W.2d 8 (1991).<br />
We do find… that the district court erred in failing to award child support simply<br />
because [the husband] is not the child’s biological father. The paramount concern<br />
and question in determining child support is the best interests of the child.<br />
Druba v. Druba , 238 Neb. 279, 470 N.W.2d 176 (1991)<br />
It is obvious that in this day and age, if a parent does not wish to provide such<br />
[health] insurance for his children, that parent must be ready to pay for health care<br />
for the children.<br />
Finnern v. Bruner, 167 Neb. 281, 92 N.W.2d 785 (1958)<br />
A decree awarding alimony and child support in an action for divorce does not<br />
become dormant by lapse of time and the defense of the statute of limitations is not<br />
available to defeat recovery of delinquent payments.<br />
Foster v. Foster, 266 Neb. 32, 662 NW2d 191 (2003)<br />
It is clear that the marriage dissolution statutes do not empower district courts to<br />
order a parent to contribute to the support of children beyond their majority.<br />
Groseth v. Groseth, 257 Neb. 525, 600 N.W.2d 159 (1999)<br />
Courts have jurisdiction to enforce court-approved settlement agreements wherein a<br />
parent voluntarily promises to support a child beyond the age of majority.<br />
- 58 -