Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$F:\Kevin\2007 Case Lists\Currently on web page\District Judges ...$



$\\orion\ChildSupport\Kevin\2007 Case Lists\Currently on web page ...$

Willers v. Willers, 255 Neb. 769, 587 N.W.2d 390 (1998) Not a classic retro support case. Mother took minor child to Washington State, then filed for divorce. Washington State entered the divorce, but no support was ordered because the court lacked jurisdiction over the husband/father. Now father has been brought to court in Nebraska and custodial parent sought support retroactive to the date of the divorce. A child born out of wedlock is entitled to child support retroactively to the date of birth, because it is upon the child’s birth that the parental duty of support commences. [T]he parental duty to support minor children can be enforced retroactively to the date of the divorce decree where a child is born in wedlock, the parents are subsequently divorced, but the divorce decree is silent on the issue of child support. 67A C.J.S. Parent and Child 75 at 390 (1978) “While the right to child support may be barred by laches, an unreasonable delay in seeking support cannot waive the right of the child to support, or remove the obligation of the father to support the child” See Modification Issues. Review & Modification Same Sex Marriage/ Civil Union Related Issues §42-117. Marriage contracted out of state; when valid. All marriages contracted without this state, which would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were contracted, shall be valid in all courts and places in this state. Source: R.S.1866, c. 34, § 17, p. 257; R.S.1913, § 1556; C.S.1922, § 1505; C.S.1929, § 42-117; R.S.1943, § 42-117. While many attorneys have long scoffed at child support law as being static and “boring”, we who practice in the area know that nothing could be further from the truth. Now, with a growing number of states† adopting same sex marriage laws or policies, including Nebraska’s neighboring State of Iowa, it is becoming clear that a whole new chapter is being written in the field of child support. This is an exciting time for child support and family law practitioners! Differences in state laws involving same sex marriages, separations and dissolutions will have to be addressed by child support offices nationwide, including here in Nebraska. The ink had barely dried on the new marriage rules in Iowa before one of our child support offices got a call from an attorney who has a client who pays support on a Nebraska child support order. He pays for his minor daughter, who planned on marrying her same sex partner in Iowa after she turns 18 years old. The inquiry was whether this marriage will serve to terminate the father’s ongoing child support obligation. Traditionally, when a minor child marries anywhere before their 19 th birthday, and the NCP provides proof of same, the marriage will serve to terminate the child support obligation as of the date of the marriage. - 168 -
What God -- or the State -- has lawfully joined will sooner or later be subject to the winds of time, and many marriages end up cast like boats upon the rocks of life. That is where we as CSE offices have come in to work our magic. There is no reason to expect that same sex couples will be any better at the marriage thing then their straight cousins, who after all have had a millennia to work on marriage but still can’t seem to get it right. Same sex families have a lower instance of raising children then heterosexual ones, but still a fair number of children are adopted into or born into these relationships. As marriages with children fail, the parties will look to the courts for assistance, and then to us. Possibly they will look to us first, in cases of separation where state assistance is involved. Questions will immediately be raised. Can we assist same sex parents in securing an award of support from their marital ex-partner? How will we address via UIFSA court orders for support from same sex relationships? Already in states where same sex marriage is not authorized divorces between same sex couples have been granted. These will be finding their way to your desk in the coming months and years. At present, the Federal “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) remains on the books, although the Obama Administration has signaled that the act is likely unconstitutional, and will not defend it further in court. It reads in relevant part: No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. The Obama Administration and others believe that DOMA runs afoul of Article IV, section 1 of the Federal Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which reads: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. A federal court in Massachusetts in 2010 held DOMA unconstitutional. In May 2012 a separate Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts also ruled unanimously that DOMA violates the federal civil rights of married gays and lesbians. Two other federal courts in California have reached the same conclusion. However, only the US Supreme Court can finally determine the constitutionality of a federal law. A DOMA case has been accepted for hearing by the US Supreme Court, and is on the court’s spring 2013 calendar. An interesting report of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress on this general issue may be viewed at http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31994.pdf † A total of 10 states, two tribes (the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon and the Suquamish Tribe in Washington State) plus the District of Columbia have approved same sex marriage as of spring 2013. As of November 2012 this list includes: - 169 -
Page 1 and 2:
The Unicameral remains in session u
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents:* * (accessible v
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents (continued): Mili
Page 7 and 8:
A Note for Legal Practitioners: Mem
Page 9 and 10:
Secondly, I have taken the approach
Page 11 and 12:
sections, the county attorney or au
Page 13 and 14:
final court-ordered determination t
Page 15 and 16:
clerk of the district court in whic
Page 17 and 18:
(1) In proceedings under sections 4
Page 19 and 20:
Nebraska courts, through their inhe
Page 21 and 22:
place. This recommendation recogniz
Page 23 and 24:
(4) Orders, decrees, and judgments
Page 25 and 26:
Mother apparently consents to this
Page 27 and 28:
Johnson v. Johnson, 215 Neb. 689, 3
Page 29 and 30:
stand dismissed without prejudice a
Page 31 and 32:
This case includes an excellent sum
Page 33 and 34:
Koch v. Koch, 226 Neb. 305, 312, 41
Page 35 and 36:
We conclude that the state was not
Page 37 and 38:
Modifying the amounts awarded to a
Page 39 and 40:
[P]ublic policy forbids enforcement
Page 41 and 42:
Carroll v. Moore, 228 Neb. 561, 423
Page 43 and 44:
(3) … A rebuttable presumption of
Page 45 and 46:
Lenz v. Lenz, 222 Neb. 85, 382 N.W.
Page 47 and 48:
Finally, we conclude that for futur
Page 49 and 50:
(7) Criminal nonsupport is a Class
Page 51 and 52:
A mother’s testimony that one is
Page 53 and 54:
Neither of the parties is authorize
Page 55 and 56:
In guardianship termination proceed
Page 57 and 58:
Weinand v. Weinand, 260 Neb. 146, 6
Page 59 and 60:
verification forms instead of tax r
Page 61 and 62:
State v. Cummings, 2 Neb. App. 820,
Page 63 and 64:
Where parents of the child are sepa
Page 65 and 66:
any unpaid child support obligation
Page 67 and 68:
Henderson v. Henderson, 264 Neb. 91
Page 69 and 70:
(0,1,2,or 3+) and how much “earne
Page 71 and 72:
Earning capacity may be used as a b
Page 73 and 74:
esponding state is modifying a supp
Page 75 and 76:
[T]he duration of the support oblig
Page 77 and 78:
A future payment of child support i
Page 79 and 80:
Such a credit clause does not viola
Page 81 and 82:
State on behalf of L.L.B. v. Hill,
Page 83 and 84:
(1) That withholding is not proper
Page 85 and 86:
Source: Laws 1974, LB 354, § 226,
Page 87 and 88:
In re Interest of Lakota Z. & Jacob
Page 89 and 90:
Note: In July 2008 the Federal Chil
Page 91 and 92:
Erica J. v. Dewitt, 265 Neb. 728, 6
Page 93 and 94:
Moore v. Bauer, 11 Neb. App. 572, 6
Page 95 and 96:
Sears v. Larson, 259 Neb. 760, 612
Page 97 and 98:
health care coverage is not availab
Page 99 and 100:
Druba v. Druba , 238 Neb. 279, 470
Page 101 and 102:
Rouse v. Rouse, 18 Neb. App. 128, 7
Page 103 and 104:
There is a presumption that income
Page 105 and 106:
The Nebraska Supreme Court has not
Page 107 and 108:
§42-364.12 Child support; withhold
Page 109 and 110:
Source: Laws 1985, Second Spec. Ses
Page 111 and 112:
shall withhold for each notice the
Page 113 and 114:
forward the child support payment.
Page 115 and 116:
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of
Page 117 and 118:
Judgments (see also Jurisdiction) 2
Page 119 and 120:
Source: Laws 1972, LB 820, § 5; La
Page 121 and 122:
[J]urisdiction is the inherent powe
Page 123 and 124: A nonimmigrant alien authorized to
Page 125 and 126: In re Interest of Tamika S. et al.,
Page 127 and 128: action to certify the license holde
Page 129 and 130: NCP had no control as to when trust
Page 131 and 132: [T]he district court abused its dis
Page 133 and 134: Note: In response to a new federal
Page 135 and 136: (1) Child support orders in cases i
Page 137 and 138: §43-512.17. Title IV-D child suppo
Page 139 and 140: In the initial determination of chi
Page 141 and 142: The federal government provides Soc
Page 143 and 144: Material change in circumstances in
Page 145 and 146: Peter v. Peter, 262 Neb. 1017, 637
Page 147 and 148: See also: Wilkins v. Wilkins, 269 N
Page 149 and 150: Adoption/Modification of the Nebras
Page 151 and 152: A party seeking to modify a dissolu
Page 153 and 154: (2)The department, through its agen
Page 155 and 156: § 43-1408.01 Notarized acknowledgm
Page 157 and 158: (4) All judgments under this sectio
Page 159 and 160: See also Shermanv. Neth, 283 Neb. 8
Page 161 and 162: grounds of newly discovered evidenc
Page 163 and 164: Fianna has resided with Jeffrey sin
Page 165 and 166: State on Behalf of Hopkins v. Batt,
Page 167 and 168: (4) . . . (a) If any case contains
Page 169 and 170: CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL REC
Page 171 and 172: To prevail on a motion to remove a
Page 173: Cooper v. Cooper, 8 Neb. App. 532,
Page 177 and 178: court should take into consideratio
Page 179 and 180: Federal Express (FedEx): FedEx Prio
Page 181 and 182: (c) PENALTY FOR MAKING OR USING FAL
Page 183 and 184: Recipients who are married and file
Page 185 and 186: provision for support is a part of
Page 187 and 188: Material change in circumstances in
Page 189 and 190: [A]limony should not be used to equ
Page 191 and 192: contumacious, but it provides no re
Page 193 and 194: parties will have to start over aga
Page 195 and 196: state has and shall exercise contin
Page 197 and 198: § 42-735 Administrative enforcemen
Page 199 and 200: (2) notify the nonregistering party
Page 201 and 202: allegations of a petition invokes t
Page 203 and 204: petitioner had failed to come to th
Page 205 and 206: . . . have the force and effect of
Page 207 and 208: caused or contributed to the cause
Page 209 and 210: in determining the child support ob
Page 211 and 212: Effective January 1, 2013, the maxi
Page 213 and 214: § 6-1521. Protection of personal a
Page 215 and 216: In contrast to recent years, the 20
Page 217 and 218: Military Retirement pay info - www.
Page 219 and 220: Daily Legal Newswire - www.law.com/
Page 221: Above All Else: Keep your sense of
show all

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?