Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

In the initial determination of child support, earning capacity may be used where
evidence is presented that the parent is capable of realizing such capacity through
reasonable effort.
The party seeking the modification has the burden to produce sufficient proof that a
material change of circumstances has occurred that warrants a modification.
For a court to modify child support, the material change of circumstances must exist
at the time of the modification trial.
Temporary unemployment is not a material change of circumstances.
Crawford v. Crawford, 263 Neb. 37, 263 Neb. 37 (2002)
Modification of a dissolution decree and the amount of child support are matters
entrusted to the trial court’s discretion, and although the issue on appeal is reviewed
de novo on the record, the decision of the trial court will be affirmed absent an
abuse of discretion
The party requesting a deviation from the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines
based upon an obligation to support offspring of a subsequent relationship bears
the burden of providing evidence regarding the obligation, including the income of
the other parent of the child or children of the subsequent relationship
In considering whether to deviate from the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines
based on an order of support for a subsequent child, the trial court must have
before it the calculations and any worksheets used to determine the child support
order for the subsequent child.
Double Dipping – If (the obligor in a modification action) was able to use his original
support obligation to decrease the amount of his subsequent support obligation to
(his later born child), it would be inequitable to allow him to turn around and use that
subsequent award as the basis for decreasing the original obligation. It would not be
in the best interests of the children to permit (the obligor) to effectively “play one
family against the other” in order to decrease his child support obligation to both.
Erica J. v. Dewitt, 265 Neb. 728, 659 N.W.2d 315 (2003)
Facts: District court modified child support, but did not do so retro to the date of the filing of the
complaint to modify. State appealed, arguing that the court should have back dated the upward
modification. Held: District court acted within its discretion in not back dating modification.
[T]he delays (in bringing the modification action to trial) do not appear to be the fault
of any one individual. We conclude that the district court’s determination to make the
increase retroactive to the first day of the month of the hearing before the
referee…was not an abuse of discretion, and we therefore affirm that portion of
the court’s judgment.
Ferry v. Ferry, 201 Neb. 595, 271 N.W.2d 450 (1978)
Where an award for child support is made in one amount for each succeeding
month for more than one child, it will be presumed to continue in force for the full
amount until the youngest child reaches his majority. The proper remedy, if this be
deemed unjust, is to seek a modification of the decree in the court which entered it
on the basis of the changed circumstances.
Gammel v. Gammel, 259 Neb. 738, 612 N.W.2d 207 (2000)
Citing Rule Q [now § 4-217] of the child support guidelines, stating that a 10% or
greater deviation from the guidelines will justify a modification. A 10% or greater
- 133 -