Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N.W.2d 67 (2007)<br />
Issue: How many years back should a court go in averaging income of parents with fluctuating<br />
income.<br />
As a general matter, in the determination of child support, income from a selfemployed<br />
individual is determined by looking to that person’s tax returns.<br />
(Reviewing) a 3-year average (income) tends to be the most common approach in<br />
cases where a parent’s income tends to fluctuate. It is not necessary for a court to<br />
look back more than three years.<br />
A daycare obligation is also subject to paragraph R’s basic subsistence<br />
limitation.<br />
Henderson v. Henderson, 264 Neb. 916, 653 N.W.2d 226 (2002)<br />
A district court has no authority to include a child who is more than 19 years of age<br />
in its child support calculations.<br />
Henke v. Guerrero, 13 Neb. App. 337, 692 N.W.2d 762 (2005)<br />
An award of child support is equitable in nature. A trial court’s award of child support<br />
in a paternity case will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of<br />
discretion by the trial court. Also see Weaver v. Compton, 8 Neb. App. 961, 605<br />
N.W.2d 478 (2000)<br />
<strong>Child</strong> support in a paternity action is to be determined in the same manner as in<br />
cases of children born in lawful wedlock. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §43-1402 (Reissue<br />
2004). The resulting duty of a parent to provide such support may, under<br />
appropriate circumstances, require the award of retroactive child support. State<br />
o/b/o Joseph F. v. Rial, 251 Neb. 1, 554 N.W.2d 769 (1996)<br />
The requirement of support begins at the time of the birth of the child, whether the<br />
child is born in lawful wedlock or otherwise.<br />
Clearly, retroactive support is included in the “support” that the trial court may order<br />
under §43-1412 (3).<br />
Hildebrand v. Hildebrand, 239 Neb. 605, 477 N.W.2d 1 (1991)<br />
In case this point wasn’t self evident….<br />
Citing In re Marriage of Root, 774 S.W.2d 521 (Mo. App. 1989):<br />
It would be absurd to hold that once parents remarry each other and the<br />
family is again intact and residing in the same household, the former<br />
noncustodial parent must pay future installments of child support to the<br />
other parent per the past divorce decree. That is to say, the remarriage<br />
should terminate the former noncustodial parent’s duty to pay any child<br />
support that would have become due after the remarriage.<br />
[O]nce parties remarry, the former child support order is moot, while any<br />
deficiencies prior to the marriage are collectible.<br />
Jensen v. Jensen, 275 Neb. 921, 750 N.W.2d 335 (2008)<br />
[W]e have never held that the absence of a child support worksheet provides a<br />
basis for a collateral attack on a final judgment. Once the [child support] order<br />
became final, even without a worksheet, it was enforceable.<br />
[P]ublic policy forbids enforcement of a private agreement that purports to<br />
discharge a parent’s liability for child support, if the agreement does not adequately<br />
provide for the child.<br />
- 20 -