Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
the obligation of support. The obligor’s fulfillment of the duty of support<br />
established by that order precludes imposition of a further obligation of support<br />
by a tribunal of this state.<br />
Despite a basic difference in the nature of the case, we rely upon the decision in<br />
Groseth v. Groseth, 257 Neb. 525, 600 N .W.2d 159 (1999), for guiding principles.<br />
… First, we properly look to the official comments contained in a model act on which<br />
a <strong>Nebraska</strong> statute or series of statutes was patterned for some guidance in an effort<br />
to ascertain the intent of the legislation. Id. Second, dicta in Groseth supports our<br />
interpretation. Third, a court must look to a statute’s purpose and give to the statute<br />
a reasonable construction which best achieves that purpose, rather than a<br />
construction which would defeat it.<br />
A comment to the 2001 UIFSA amendments…(states): The fact that the State of the<br />
new controlling order has a different duration of for [sic] child support is specifically<br />
declared to be irrelevant by UIFSA. … This comment refers to the 2001 amendment<br />
to UIFSA § 611 adding a new section (d), which was, in turn, adopted essentially<br />
verbatim by the <strong>Nebraska</strong> Legislature as the current § 42-746(d). Section 42-476(c)<br />
was also amended to expressly refer to the duration of the obligation of support as<br />
an aspect that cannot be modified under the law of the issuing state.<br />
[T]he duration of the support obligation remains fixed despite the subsequent<br />
residence of all parties in a new state with a different duration of child support.<br />
Unclean Hands<br />
(see also Modification)<br />
Marr v. Marr, Jr., 245 Neb. 655, 515 N.W.2d 118 (1994)<br />
Facts: Obligated parent/self employed paving contractor tried to get his child support modified<br />
and reduced, but evidence showed he owed $14,000 in past due support and had made no real<br />
effort to pay support despite earning a modest income. Held: Unclean hands prevents the<br />
court from modifying his support order.<br />
"He who seeks equity must do equity" and … a party seeking equitable relief must<br />
come into court with "clean hands<br />
Had appellant presented a record where he consistently attempted to discharge his<br />
duty to support his child, in an amount reflecting a bona fide effort to perform his<br />
parental (and court-ordered) duty of support, a different case might be presented<br />
Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 241 Neb. 43, 486 N.W.2d 215 (1992)<br />
Facts: Noncustodial father, after having been found to be in willful contempt of court for failure to<br />
make child support payments for his two minor children, filed an application to modify the<br />
divorce decree. In the application, he alleged that he was not the father of the older child and<br />
sought a paternity determination as well as custody of the younger child. The mother of the<br />
children successfully contended that the application should be dismissed on the ground that the<br />
- 196 -