Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Material change in circumstances in reference to modification of child support is
analogous to modification of alimony for good cause.
Lucero v. Lucero, 16 Neb. App. 706, 750 N.W.2d 377 (2008)
Absent equities to the contrary, the modification of child support orders should be
applied retroactively to the first day of the month following the filing date of the
application for modification.
In the absence of a showing of bad faith, it is an abuse of discretion for a court to
award retroactive child support when the evidence shows the obligated parent
does not have the ability to pay the retroactive support and still meet current
obligations.
The same principles that apply with respect to retroactivity of a new obligation to pay
support, i.e., that the obligation can be retroactive to the first day of the month
following the filing of a request to modify to impose (or increase) a child support
obligation, should generally apply also when the request is to terminate a child
support obligation.
Metcalf v. Metcalf, 278 Neb. 258, 769 N.W.2d 386 (2009)
Second attempts to modify support just got harder to justify under this Supreme Court
decision
We determine that in cases where there has been a previous attempt to modify
support, the court must first consider whether circumstances have changed since
the most recent [albeit failed] request for modification. But when considering
whether there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances
justifying modification, the court will consider the change in circumstances since the
date of the last order establishing or modifying alimony. In other words, a judgment
for alimony may be modified only upon a showing of facts or circumstances
that have changed since the last order granting or denying modification was
entered. But once some change has been established since the last request,
the analysis focuses on the change in circumstances since alimony was
originally awarded or last modified. We adopt this rule because it recognizes the
force of res judicata; modification will be considered only when there has been a
change in circumstances since the last request for modification. But if there has
been no change, modification is not justified, because the request is essentially the
same as the last request.
[A]ny change in circumstances occurring since the first [unsuccessful] modification
proceeding should have been compared to the original decree when determining
whether the change in circumstances was a material and substantial change
warranting modification. Any changes in … circumstances that occurred prior to the
first modification proceeding are settled, and the doctrine of res judicata prevents the
district court from considering any change based on those circumstances.
Muller v. Muller, 3 Neb. App. 159, 524 N.W.2d 78 (1994)
Knaub v. Knaub, 245 Neb. 172, 512 N.W.2d 124 (1994)
Modification of the amount of child support payments is an issue entrusted to the
discretion of the trial court, and although, on appeal, the issue is reviewed de novo
on the record, the decision of the trial court will be affirmed absent an abuse of
discretion.
- 137 -