Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

The court did not abuse its discretion when it deviated from the guidelines by not
considering farming losses when calculating the noncustodial parent’s monthly
income.
Reinsch v. Reinsch, 259 Neb. 564, 611 N.W.2d 86 (2000)
once a material change of circumstances was demonstrated with respect to amount
of child support, trial court was justified in also modifying duration of child support
order. (There is no need to find a separate material change in circumstances for
each and every modification of a term of the support order, so long as at least one
material change in circumstances is found by the trial court. The one change in
circumstances opens the door to a modification of any of the terms of the order.)
Rhoades v. Rhoades, 258 Neb. 721, 605 N.W.2d 454 (2000)
A party seeking to modify a child support order must show a material change in
circumstances which has occurred subsequent to the entry of the original decree or
a previous modification and was not contemplated when the decree was entered.
Among the factors to be considered in determining whether a material change of
circumstances has occurred are changes in the financial position of the parent
obligated to pay support, the needs of the children for whom support is paid, good or
bad faith motive of the obligated parent in sustaining a reduction in income, and
whether the change is temporary or permanent.
As a general rule, the income of a self-employed person can be determined from
his or her income tax return. However, income for the purpose of child support is not
necessarily synonymous with taxable income.
We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in allowing a deviation from
the current child support guidelines by permitting the obligor to deduct the cost of his
tractor in computing his income for child support purposes in the modification
proceeding in the absence of a showing that this deduction was utilized at the time
of the original child support determination and that application of the deduction was
necessary in order to avoid an unjust or inappropriate result.
Good discussion of how to figure income on the self employed
Riggs v. Riggs, 261 Neb. 344, 622 N.W.2d 861 (2001)
The child and custodial parent should not be penalized, if it can be avoided, by the
delay inherent in our legal system. See Reinsch v. Reinsch, 259 Neb. 564, 611
N.W.2d 86 (2000). Therefore, the rule, absent equities to the contrary, should
generally be that the modification of a child support order should be applied
retroactively to the first day of the month following the filing date of the application
for modification.
[T]he initial determination regarding the retroactive application of the
modification order is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and the
decision of the trial court will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. See Sears
v. Larson, 259 Neb. 760, 612 N.W.2d 474 (2000). There are circumstances, for
example, when a noncustodial parent may not have the ability to pay retroactive
support and meet current obligations. However, the general rule of applying
modification of child support orders retroactively to the first day of the month
following the filing date of the application for modification is intended to clarify the
law and to more accurately reflect the practice regarding the effective date of child
support modification orders.
- 140 -