Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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



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

It is simply not fair or reasonable to give the custodial parent the benefit of 100% of the Social Security payments and thus shift most of the burden of supplying the unprovided support to the noncustodial parent. The guidelines can still be used as a reliable guide in setting support if the Social Security benefits are considered as Notice to IV-D Child Support Attorneys: DHHS CSE Memos of Feb. 5 and March 1, 2013 reiterate that “CSE is prohibited from using Federal enforcement tools to enforce spousal support judgments once the child support judgment ends. In addition, CSE is prohibited from using the following state enforcement tools to enforce spousal support judgments: income withholding, license suspension, administrative attachment and state income tax offset. If a payment is received using one of the ineligible enforcement tools, the payment will not be applied to a spousal support judgment when the spousal support judgment has ended.” This means that even when child support arrears are owed, if the child no longer qualifies to receive ongoing “current” child support, the child support judgment has terminated, and no future collections of spousal support will occur, even if child support arrears continue to be owed. Questions may be directed to Lisa Maddock in Lincoln at 1-402-471-1400. family income but not attributed to either parent, and if they are applied to the support computed under the guidelines for that income, with the balance prorated to the parties on the basis of their real incomes. In this way, the total support is increased in recognition that the family income is greater than the net monthly earnings of the parents, and the parent who has the legal obligation to support the child receives the benefit of the government program intended to pay for the support of the child. Calculate support this way: 1. Mom’s gross income + Dad’s Gross income = Parental gross income 2. Add value of social security benefits. Sum = New family gross income 3. Calculate family child support amount based on line 2. 4. Deduct social security benefit amount from figure derived from step 3. 5. Arrive at new family support amount. 6. Prorate child support amount from step 5 between the parents based upon their “real” incomes. Spousal Support/Alimony (See also Modification) Section 43-1715. Spousal support, defined. Spousal support shall mean alimony or maintenance support for a spouse or former spouse if the - 178 -
provision for support is a part of an order, decree, or judgment which provides for child support and the child and spouse or former spouse are living in the same household. Source: Laws 1985, Second Spec. Sess., LB 7, § 35 Note: The terms “alimony” and “spousal support” are used interchangeably throughout Nebraska case law, and there is no meaningful difference. Technically, all spousal support is alimony, but all alimony is not spousal support, as reflected in the statute cited above. Finney v. Finney, 273 Neb. 436, 730 N.W.2d 351 (2007) Metcalf v. Metcalf, 278 Neb. 258, 269 N.W.2d 386 (2009) – also see below Modification of a dissolution decree is a matter entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, whose order is reviewed de novo on the record, and which will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Alimony orders may be modified or revoked for good cause shown. Good cause means a material and substantial change in circumstances and depends upon the circumstances of each case. The moving party has the burden of demonstrating a material and substantial change in circumstances which would justify the modification of an alimony award. Changes in circumstances which were within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the decree, or that were accomplished by the mere passage of time, do not justify a change or modification of an alimony award. Grahovac vs. Grahovac, 12 Neb. App. 585, 680 N.W.2d 616 (2004) An award of alimony may be modified or revoked if the moving party can show good cause. See Pope v. Pope, 251 Neb. 773, 559 N.W.2d 192 (1997). In an action for modification of alimony, good cause is demonstrated by a material change in circumstances, but any changes in circumstances which were within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the decree, or that were accomplished by the mere passage of time, do not justify a change or modification of an alimony order. A modification of child support is only warranted when a change of circumstances is of a material and substantial nature and was not contemplated at the time of the decree. A petition for the modification or termination of alimony will be denied if the change in financial condition is due to fault or voluntary wastage or dissipation of one’s talents and assets. A “practicing alcoholic” who lost high paying job due to alcoholism and refusal to seek treatment cannot seek reduction in alimony. Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N.W.2d 67 (2007) Although paragraph R of the NCSG speaks only to child support, we are persuaded that the basic subsistence limitation in that paragraph should apply with equal force in the alimony context. As a purely logical matter, this conclusion is buttressed by the structure of the NCGS itself. …[P]aragraph M [now § 4-213] of the NCSG mandates that alimony be drawn from whatever income is left after child support obligations have been determined. Prioritizing child support over alimony indicates that of the two, child support is the more important support interest. So if child support cannot drive an obligor’s income below the poverty line unless - 179 -
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 and 174: Cooper v. Cooper, 8 Neb. App. 532,
Page 175 and 176: What God -- or the State -- has law
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: Recipients who are married and file
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?