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.
A party seeking to modify child support must show a material change in<br />
circumstances which has occurred subsequent to the entry of the original order or<br />
previous modification and was not contemplated when the most recent support<br />
order was entered.<br />
Among the factors to be considered in determining whether a material change in<br />
circumstances has occurred are changes in the financial position of the obligor<br />
parent, the needs of the children, good or bad faith motive of the obligor parent in<br />
sustaining a reduction in income, and whether the change is temporary or<br />
permanent.<br />
The paramount concern and question in determining child support is the best<br />
interests of the child.<br />
Murphy v. Murphy, 17 Neb. App. 279 (2008)<br />
Facts: Father was employed for $70,000 a year at time of divorce. He was also on<br />
disciplinary probation and “skating on thin ice” at that time. Within a year he got into more<br />
trouble at work and resigned his job in the face of being fired. He could not find other<br />
employment paying more than $35,000 per year, so filed to modify his child support and<br />
alimony. The District court sided with father, but the Court of Appeals reversed.<br />
Matthew was clearly involved in “employee misconduct”. [A] request to modify<br />
child support will be denied if the change in financial circumstances is due to fault or<br />
voluntary wastage or dissipation of one’s talents and assets. … We reverse and<br />
vacate the district court’s downward modification of Matthew’s child support and<br />
alimony obligation on the ground of Matthew’s reduced earnings.<br />
Noonan v. Noonan, 261 Neb. 552, 624 N.W.2d 314 (2001);<br />
Moore v. Bauer, 11 Neb. App. 572, 657 N.W.2d 25 (2003)<br />
Modification of child support payments is entrusted to the trial court’s discretion, and<br />
although, on appeal, the issue is reviewed de novo on the record, the decision of the<br />
trial court will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.<br />
The rule, absent equities to the contrary, should generally be that the modification<br />
of a child support order should be applied retroactively to the first day of the<br />
month following the filing date of the application for modification.<br />
Pearson v. Pearson, 285 Neb. 686, ___ N.W.2d ___ (April 2013)<br />
Facts: Mom remarried and wanted to move to Alaska with the kids. The District Court allowed<br />
her to, but in return canceled Dad’s child support obligation. No work sheet was attached.<br />
Held: A worksheet must be attached, showing how the trial court reached the conclusion that<br />
travel/visitation expenses equaled what the Dad would have paid in support.<br />
“the record on appeal from an order imposing or modifying child support shall<br />
include any applicable worksheets with the trial court’s order. Failure to include such<br />
worksheets in the record will result in summary remand of the trial court’s order.”<br />
Only reasonable transportation expenses may reduce or abate a child support<br />
obligation. Allowing unlimited abatement of child support, to the point where the<br />
custodial parent receives substantially reduced or no child support, is contrary to the<br />
children’s best interests. . . . a custodial parent has some fixed and constant<br />
expenses in raising children, and these expenses do not decrease during extended<br />
periods of visitation with the noncustodial parent. These expenses certainly do not<br />
decrease simply because transportation costs significantly increase.<br />
- 138 -