Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Johnson v. Johnson, 215 Neb. 689, 340 N.W.2d 393 (1983)
Where an award for child support is made in one amount for each succeeding month
for more than one child, it will be presumed to continue in force for the full amount
until the youngest child reaches his majority. The proper remedy, if this be deemed
unjust, is to seek a modification of the decree in the court which entered it, on the
basis of the changed circumstances.
A single amount to be paid periodically for the support of more than one child is not
subject to an automatic pro rata reduction.
Mehne v. Hess, 4 Neb. App. 935, 553 N.W.2d 482 (1996)
The trial court’s award of child support after a determination of paternity will not be
disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Smith, 231 Neb. 740,
437 N.W.2d 803 (1989); Hanson v. Rockwell, 206 Neb. 299, 292 N.W.2d 786
(1980).
Muller v. Muller, 3 Neb. App. 159, 524 N.W.2d 78 (1994)
The paramount concern and question in determining child support, whether in an
initial marital dissolution action or in proceedings for modification of a decree, is the
best interests of the child. See also Phelps v. Phelps, 239 Neb. 618, 477
N.W.2d 552 (1991)
Neb. Rev. Stat. §42-371(5) authorizes the posting of security to insure the payment
of child support. Reasonable security to insure payment of child support should be
invoked only when compelling circumstances require it.
The fact that a custodial parent is not ordered to remit a monthly dollar amount for
child support does not release him or her from the obligation to contribute to the
support of the children. Earning capacity of each parent, and not merely the actual
income, is to be considered in determining the amount of child support to be paid by
a parent.
Shiers v. Shiers, 240 Neb. 856, 485 N.W.2d 574 (1992)
There is statutory and judicial authority for considering a parent’s net earning
capacity rather than his or her actual net income in determining child support. See,
Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-364(6), Ristow v. Ristow, 152 Neb. 615, 41 N.W.2d 924 (1950).
Simpson v. Simpson, 275 Neb. 152, 744 N.W.2d 410 (2008)
After determining that expatriate compensation IS income for purposes of calculating a
child support award….
Under the facts of this case [where the NCP lived abroad and had much higher living
expenses than he would have if he lived in the U.S.], we cannot say that the district
court abused its discretion when it determined that [the obligated parent’s]
expatriate compensation is not reasonably available for child support payments.
State on Behalf of Kayla T. v. Risinger, 273 Neb. 694, 731 N.W.2d 892 (2007)
Facts: Dad learned of unmarried Mom’s pregnancy, but had no contact with child for 17 years,
until state filed paternity action. Dad admitted paternity but did not want to have to pay
$60,000+ in retro support for 17 years, citing mother’s promise not to come after him for support
in return for him staying away from his child. Held: Dad must pay the retro support.
- 21 -