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.
§43-512.08. Intervention in matters relating to child, spousal, or medical support; when<br />
authorized.<br />
The county attorney or authorized attorney, acting for or on behalf of the State of <strong>Nebraska</strong>, may<br />
intervene without leave of the court in any proceeding for dissolution of marriage, paternity,<br />
separate maintenance, or child, spousal, or medical support for the purpose of securing an order<br />
for child, spousal, or medical support, modifying an order for child or medical support, or<br />
modifying an order for child support as the result of a review of such order under sections 43-<br />
512.12 to 43-512.18. Such proceedings shall be limited only to the determination of child or<br />
medical support. Except in cases in which the intervention is the result of a review under such<br />
sections, the county attorney or authorized attorney shall so act only when it appears that the<br />
children are not otherwise represented by counsel.<br />
Source: Laws 1976, LB 926, § 10; Laws 1985, Second Spec. Sess., LB 7, § 72; Laws 1991, LB 457, §<br />
12; Laws 1991, LB 715, § 11; Laws 1994, LB 1224, § 54, Laws 2007, LB554, § 41 Effective January 1, 2008<br />
Cammarata v. Chambers, 6 Neb. App. 467, 574 N.W.2d 530 (1998)<br />
Facts: Dad was ordered to pay support pursuant to decree entered in 1984. In 1992 the court<br />
modified the order, switched custody to the dad, and effectively set support at $0 until the<br />
mother became employed. Later the child moved out of Dad’s home and into Mom’s, and Mom<br />
applied for Medicaid. The State then filed an action to establish a child support order pursuant<br />
to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-512.03 et seq, alleging the child was now with Mom and in need of<br />
support. Dad appealed, claiming CSE agency had no authority to file for new support order, as<br />
the parties’ 1992 modification order addressed child support.<br />
Held: The state was acting beyond its authority; accordingly, the new support order was<br />
vacated.<br />
The nonexistence of a support order is a prerequisite to an action under Neb. Rev.<br />
Stat. § 43-512.03.<br />
A court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action brought pursuant to Neb. Rev.<br />
Stat. § 43-512.03 only when there is no existing child support order.<br />
If there is an existing child support order, the State is not authorized to file a petition<br />
for payment of support pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-512.03.<br />
[T]he dissolution decree and the modification orders address the issue of child<br />
support. Even if it was the case that the orders provided that no support is due<br />
from either parent, that does not change the fact that there is an existing<br />
support order.<br />
Note: Section 43-512.01 may allow a CSE attorney to intervene to modify the existing child<br />
support order, but this necessarily involves a change in legal custody of the minor child, which<br />
we are expressly prohibited from becoming involved with, and which requires the court to make<br />
a “best interests” determination before placing physical/legal custody of the child with a parent.<br />
This appears to be a “catch 22” for CSE attorneys.<br />
<strong>Nebraska</strong> v. Garcia, 238 Neb. 455, 471 N.W.2d 388 (1991)<br />
We agree with the <strong>Nebraska</strong> State Bar Association’s advisory opinion that the<br />
county attorney may not represent both the interests of the child and the interests of<br />
a parent when the issue of custody of the child is raised. The county attorney’s<br />
duties are clearly set forth in the statutes above. These duties do not include<br />
involvement in the determination of custody of a dependent child.<br />
We do not find any statute in which the Legislature has permitted a judgment for<br />
attorney fees to be entered against the State in an action for child support payments.<br />
… any judgment against the State for these fees violates state sovereignty.<br />
- 110 -