Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

State on Behalf of Hopkins v. Batt, 253 Neb. 852, 573 N.W.2d 425 (1998)
Note: Portions of this opinion are thrown into serious doubt by Cesar C. v. Alicia L., 281 Neb.
979, ___ N.W.2d ____ (July 2011). This case may be limited to its own unusual set of facts.
Th[e] statutory presumption [of paternity in the husband of the biological mother
contained in §42-377] may be rebutted by clear, satisfactory, and convincing
evidence. In a paternity action, the mother and the alleged father are competent to
testify that a child’s parentage is contrary to the presumption of legitimacy.
In the absence of a biological relationship between a husband and his wife’s child,
the husband may acquire certain rights and responsibilities when he elects to stand
in loco parentis to the child. See, Hickenbottom v. Hickenbottom, 239 Neb. 579,
477 N.W.2d 8 (1991).
‘A person standing in loco parentis to a child is one who has put himself in the
situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental
relation, without going through the formalities necessary to a legal adoption, and the
rights, duties, and liabilities of such person are the same as those of the lawful
parent. The assumption of the relation is a question of intention, which may be
shown by the acts and declarations of the person alleged to stand in that relation.’
See, Austin v. Austin, 147 Neb. 109, 22 N.W.2d 560 (1946)
A non-bio father may at one time have intended to stand in loco parentis to a
child by naming the child after him and paying child support pursuant to a
dissolution decree, but that does not permanently forestall a court from finding
another man to be the biological father of the child, and ordering child support
An acknowledgment of paternity by another person is not conclusive in an action
to establish paternity in the biological father.
State on Behalf of Joseph F. v. Rial, 251 Neb. 1, 554 N.W.2d 769 (1996)
A district court retains jurisdiction for orders regarding child support
notwithstanding the fact that a paternity determination is on appeal.
State ex rel. Storz v. Storz, 235 Neb. 368, 455 N.W.2d 182 (1990)
If a father and mother were still married* when the child was conceived, the child is
their legitimate offspring, and he or she is a product of their marriage, even if they
later divorce before the child is born.
* before the divorce becomes final
State v. Cummings, 2 Neb. App. 820, 515 N.W.2d 680 (1994)
Where a defendant is in default, the allegations of the petition are to be taken as
true against him, except allegations of value and amount of damage, and if the
petition states a cause of action, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment without proof
except as to the quantum of damages. (Paternity corroboration language in §43-
1412 does not override basic default rule)
State v. Yelli, 247 Neb. 785, 530 N.W.2d 250 (1995)
In a civil action, only a preponderance of the evidence is necessary to sustain the
establishment of paternity.
Younkin v. Younkin, 221 Neb. 134, 375 N.W.2d 894 (1985)
A fundamental fact necessary to sustain an order of child support is paternity by the
man judicially obligated to pay such support.
- 159 -