Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$F:\Kevin\2007 Case Lists\Currently on web page\District Judges ...$



$\\orion\ChildSupport\Kevin\2007 Case Lists\Currently on web page ...$

In re Guardianship of Robert D., 269 Neb. 820, 696 N.W.2d 461 (2005) Under the parental preference principle, a parent's natural right to the custody of his or her child trumps the interests of strangers to the parent-child relationship and the preferences of the child. Absent circumstances which terminate a parent's constitutionally protected right to care for his or her child, due regard for the right requires that a biological or adoptive parent be presumptively regarded as the proper guardian for his or her child. In guardianship termination proceedings involving a biological or adoptive parent, the parental preference principle serves to establish a rebuttable presumption that the best interests of the child are served by reuniting the minor child with his or her parent. An individual who opposes the termination of a guardianship bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the biological or adoptive parent either is unfit or has forfeited his or her right to custody. Absent such proof, the constitutional dimensions of the relationship between parent and child require termination of the guardianship and reunification with the parent. Parental rights may be forfeited by a substantial, continuous, and repeated neglect of a child and a failure to discharge the duties of parental care and protection. Guardianships are designed to temporarily relieve parents of the rigors of raising a child. The nature of a guardianship makes it particularly inappropriate to establish the forfeiture of parental rights by solely focusing on a parent's failure to discharge the duties of parental care and protection. There must also be clear and convincing evidence of substantial, continuous, and repeated neglect of a child. This may be established by the complete indifference of a parent for a child's welfare over a long period of time. In re Interest of Lakota Z. & Jacob H., 282 Neb. 584, 804 N.W.2d 174 (October 2011) In guardianship termination proceedings involving a biological or adoptive parent, the parental preference principle serves to establish a rebuttable presumption that the best interests of a child are served by reuniting the child with his or her parent. An individual who opposes the termination of a guardianship bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the biological or adoptive parent either is unfit or has forfeited his or her right to custody. Absent such proof, the constitutional dimensions of the relationship between parent and child require termination of the guardianship and reunification with the parent. Uhing v. Uhing, 241 Neb. 368, 488 N.W.2d 366 (1992) In a parent's habeas corpus proceeding directed at child custody, a court may not deprive a parent of a minor's custody unless it is affirmatively shown that the parent seeking habeas corpus relief is unfit to perform the parental duties imposed by the parent-child relationship or has legally lost parental rights in the child. - 78 -
Guidelines Issues (Including sufficient and insufficient reasons for deviating from the guidelines — See also Modification Issues) Note: Minor tweaking of the Nebraska’s child support guidelines were approved July 13, and take effect Sept. 1, 2011. View Amendments Among the largest changes are: a change to Worksheet #1, adding cash medical support as a factor that adjusts a final child support award, much as the cost of dependent health insurance does; Birth related medical expenses remain uncollectable. “Health insurance” is now defined to include coverage for medical, dental, orthodontic, optometric, substance abuse, and mental health treatment; If a court orders a parent to pay cash medical support, it shall be in lieu of, and not in addition to, requiring the parent to also pay reimbursement for reasonable and necessary children's health care costs; If the child is residing with a third party, the court shall order each of the parents to pay to the third party their respective amounts of child support as determined by the worksheet. View Child Support Guidelines Worksheets and Income Shares Table §42-364.16 Child support guidelines; establishment; use. The Supreme Court shall provide by court rule, as a rebuttable presumption, guidelines for the establishment of all child support obligations. Child support shall be established in accordance with such guidelines, which guidelines are presumed to be in the best interests of the child, unless the court finds that one or both parties have produced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the application of the guidelines will result in a fair and equitable child support order. Source: Laws 1985, Second Spec. Sess., LB 7, § 18; Laws 1994, LB 1224, § 46. § 4-203 of the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines specifically declares that: “All orders for child support, including modifications, must include a basic income and support calculation worksheet” from the child support guidelines. [This is now absolutely mandatory!!!] § 4-203 of the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines also states, in part: All orders for child support obligations shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the guidelines unless the court finds that one or both parties have produced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the guidelines should be applied. All stipulated agreements for child support must be reviewed against the guidelines and if a deviation exists and is approved by the court, specific findings giving the reason for the deviation must be made. √ Note: Attorney Kent Schroeder, of Kearney, produces a low cost CD Child Support Calculator program, which is easy to install and use on any Windows based computer. Contact Kent at kschroeder@nebraska.edu or 1-800-657-2131 for further information. Attorney Adam Astley, 402-344-4000, has also developed an Internet based program. - 79 -
Page 1 and 2:
Have a Wonderful Summer! Child Supp
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents:* * (accessible v
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents (continued): Mult
Page 7 and 8:
A Note for Legal Practitioners: Mem
Page 9 and 10:
Overview/ IV-D Attorney Duty Gangwi
Page 11 and 12:
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-105(2) (Reissu
Page 13 and 14:
See Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248
Page 15 and 16:
their attorney of record and, excep
Page 17 and 18:
State ex rel. Lemon v. Gale, 272 Ne
Page 19 and 20:
disobedience as an essential elemen
Page 21 and 22:
student loan that the noncustodial
Page 23 and 24:
having jurisdiction to compel the s
Page 25 and 26:
Drew on Behalf of Reed v. Reed, 16
Page 27 and 28:
income, is to be considered in dete
Page 29 and 30:
§ 48-802 - Statutes, General Rules
Page 31 and 32:
from arriving on the scene, either
Page 33 and 34: In equity cases trial judges should
Page 35 and 36: Similarly, a party who does more th
Page 37 and 38: Common Law Marriages States that au
Page 39 and 40: Constitutional Issues/ Statutory In
Page 41 and 42: Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, 101
Page 43 and 44: In re Interest of Thomas M., 282 Ne
Page 45 and 46: See Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kre
Page 47 and 48: Because a conditional commitment is
Page 49 and 50: obligation when he currently has an
Page 51 and 52: An order modifying child custody wh
Page 53 and 54: Haynes v. Haynes, 205 Neb. 35, 286
Page 55 and 56: Stuhr v. Stuhr, 240 Neb. 239, 481 N
Page 57 and 58: By failing to take the genetic test
Page 59 and 60: State on behalf of L.L.B. v. Hill,
Page 61 and 62: Due Process Conn v. Conn, 13 Neb. A
Page 63 and 64: or court order of emancipation or a
Page 65 and 66: Henderson v. Henderson, 264 Neb. 91
Page 67 and 68: they have income. There is no floor
Page 69 and 70: Lainson v. Lainson, 219 Neb. 170, 3
Page 71 and 72: Millatmal v. Millatmal, 272 Neb. 45
Page 73 and 74: 24A Am. Jur. 2d Divorce and Separat
Page 75 and 76: [T]he fact that [the custodial pare
Page 77 and 78: The same principles that apply with
Page 79 and 80: “[C]oncerns regarding the stigma
Page 81 and 82: (a) The interpretation of the suppo
Page 83: make the appointment. In other case
Page 87 and 88: Note: In July 2008 the Federal Chil
Page 89 and 90: Erica J. v. Dewitt, 265 Neb. 728, 6
Page 91 and 92: Morrill County v. Darsaklis, 7 Neb.
Page 93 and 94: Any deviation from the guidelines m
Page 95 and 96: to also pay reimbursement for reaso
Page 97 and 98: or law of another state substantial
Page 99 and 100: §43-1711 Income, defined. Income s
Page 101 and 102: Simpson v. Simpson, 275 Neb. 152, 7
Page 103 and 104: §42-364.09. Child support; withhol
Page 105 and 106: §43-1709. Employer or other payor,
Page 107 and 108: (6) That the employer or other payo
Page 109 and 110: income withholding for current supp
Page 111 and 112: Title IV-D Division of the Departme
Page 113 and 114: Held: The state was acting beyond i
Page 115 and 116: (3) Any juvenile…whose parent, gu
Page 117 and 118: proceeding or a new action. Since t
Page 119 and 120: State, Dept. of Social Services v.
Page 121 and 122: amount equal to the support due and
Page 123 and 124: Source: Laws 1975, LB 212, § 8; La
Page 125 and 126: The second is used in aid of an exe
Page 127 and 128: Halsted v. Halsted, 169 Neb. 325, 9
Page 129 and 130: Neb. Ct. R. § 4-217 Modification.
Page 131 and 132: she had sufficient resources to pro
Page 133 and 134: If applicable, earning capacity may
Page 135 and 136:
Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N
Page 137 and 138:
A district court may modify a regis
Page 139 and 140:
Peter v. Peter, 262 Neb. 1017, 637
Page 141 and 142:
See also: Wilkins v. Wilkins, 269 N
Page 143 and 144:
Under certain circumstances, an ame
Page 145 and 146:
A party seeking to modify a dissolu
Page 147 and 148:
(2)The department, through its agen
Page 149 and 150:
§ 43-1408.01 Notarized acknowledgm
Page 151 and 152:
§43-1414. Genetic testing; procedu
Page 153 and 154:
Carlson v. Bartels, 143 Neb. 680, 1
Page 155 and 156:
as to the paternity of the minor ch
Page 157 and 158:
Jones v. Paulson, 261 Neb. 327, 622
Page 159 and 160:
in loco parentis to the child. See,
Page 161 and 162:
(b) If the court orders income with
Page 163 and 164:
enforcement, for example, we are fo
Page 165 and 166:
ights of visitation. Later mother c
Page 167 and 168:
Matchett v. Dunkle, 244 Neb. 639, 5
Page 169 and 170:
Connecticut, the District of Columb
Page 171 and 172:
In order to stand in loco parentis,
Page 173 and 174:
Of particular interest is the requi
Page 175 and 176:
Social Security (Also see Equity, E
Page 177 and 178:
Calculate support this way: 1. Mom
Page 179 and 180:
Spousal support, when used in the c
Page 181 and 182:
punishment for sexual assault in th
Page 183 and 184:
Hall v. Hall, 238 Neb. 686, 472 N.W
Page 185 and 186:
interests of a child are served by
Page 187 and 188:
§42-722. Private counsel. An indiv
Page 189 and 190:
the following three conditions are
Page 191 and 192:
Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 43 §
Page 193 and 194:
Despite a basic difference in the n
Page 195 and 196:
Conrad v. Conrad, 208 Neb. 588, 304
Page 197 and 198:
Mace v. Mace, 13 Neb. App. 896, 703
Page 199 and 200:
In re Interest of Chance J., 279 Ne
Page 201 and 202:
per hour, two hour minimum. C. (1)
Page 203 and 204:
(3) If, regardless of whether payme
Page 205 and 206:
Rule 21 adopted April 16, 2008. Ren
Page 207 and 208:
Nebraska Information System (NIS):
Page 209 and 210:
web site: www.usmc-mccs.org/contact
Page 211 and 212:
FIPS FPLS IRG IV-D JUSTICE MSFIDM N
show all

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?