Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

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