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.
are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently<br />
attempts to assert;<br />
(2) the intention, or at least the expectation, that such conduct shall be acted<br />
upon by, or influence, the other party or other persons; and<br />
(3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts; and as to the other party,<br />
(4) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts<br />
in question;<br />
(5) reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be<br />
estopped; and<br />
(6) action or inaction based thereon of such a character as to change the position<br />
or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment, or<br />
prejudice.<br />
[See also Truman v. Truman, 256 Neb. 628, 591 N.W.2d 81 (1999)]<br />
Someone who is not a party to the pending court action may not be estopped.<br />
State on Behalf of Kayla T. v. Risinger, 273 Neb. 694, 731 N.W.2d 892 (2007)<br />
Facts: Dad learned of unmarried Mom’s pregnancy, but had no contact with child for 17<br />
years, until state filed paternity action. Dad admitted paternity but did not want to have to pay<br />
$60,000+ in retro support for 17 years, citing mother’s promise not to come after him for support<br />
in return for him staying away from his child. Held: Dad must pay the retro support.<br />
A private agreement between parents that would deprive a child of support from one<br />
parent contravenes the public policy of this. State.<br />
[B]ecause the right to support belonged to [the child], any. Agreement made or<br />
actions taken by [the mother] would not be the. Basis for equitable estoppel in this<br />
paternity and child support action brought by the State on the child’s behalf.<br />
Even though the State fashioned the action as one brought on behalf of both the<br />
mother and the child, at least with regard to issues of support, this action is one<br />
brought on behalf of the child. To secure her right to support. Therefore, whether or<br />
not the. Mother should be equitably estopped from seeking any sort of relief for<br />
herself, the State was not estopped from seeking support on the child’s behalf in this<br />
action.<br />
State on behalf of L.L.B. v. Hill, 268 Neb. 355, 682 N.W.2d 709 (2004)<br />
To be entitled to equitable relief from a judgment, a party must show that the<br />
situation is not due to his or her fault, neglect, or.carelessness.<br />
Here, Hill does not deny that he received notice of the 1996.petition to establish<br />
paternity and the State’s motion for DNA. Testing. Instead of having the testing<br />
done, he failed to appear, resulting in a default judgment. …Even though he firmly<br />
believed. That he was not the child’s father, he did nothing until the State.<br />
Commenced contempt proceedings in 2002, almost 5 years after. The dismissal of<br />
his motion to vacate in term. It was Hill’s. inexcusable lack of diligence which led<br />
to the accumulation of the arrearages, and as a result, equity will not aid him in<br />
vacating those arrearages.<br />
State on Behalf of J. R. v. Mendoza, 240 Neb. 149, 481 N.W.2d 165 (1992)<br />
(Discussed in more detail elsewhere in this outline) Is a party who signs and files a<br />
sworn acknowledgment of paternity with the department of vital statistics for<br />
purposes of obtaining a new birth certificate conclusively established as the child’s<br />
“legal father?” “[W]e decline to give such an acknowledgment conclusive effect.”<br />
- 72 -