Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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



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

proceedings. Outside of statutory procedures imposing a different standard, it is the complainant’s burden to prove civil contempt by clear and convincing evidence. See Spady v. Spady, 284 Neb. 885 (December 2012) District court found obligated parent in civil contempt for failure to pay alimony, despite the fact the parent failed to personally appear at the contempt hearing. The Supreme Court upheld the contempt finding on other grounds. State ex rel. Bonner v. McSwine, 14 Neb. App. 486, 709 N.W.2d 691 (2006) A finding that a judgment debtor is not in contempt does not discharge or otherwise impair the underlying judgment for child support. (Duh!) Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1613 (Reissue 2004), in any and all cases referred to a child support referee by the district court, the parties shall have the right to take exceptions to the findings and recommendations made by the referee and to have a further hearing before the district court for final disposition. Turner v. Rogers et al., U.S. Supreme Court (June 2011) – (See Constitutional law) Corporations Gangwish v. Gangwish, 267 Neb. 901, 678 N.W.2d 503 (2004) While building equity in a corporation in lieu of taking salary can be a wise business decision, the “’support of one’s children is a fundamental obligation which takes precedence over almost everything else. It would simply be inequitable for the children to suffer because of the father’s decision to build value in the corporation by depressing his salary. Courts must consider, in addition to looking at the noncustodial parent’s reported income, (1) the in-kind benefits, e.g., perquisites, that the parent received from the corporation; (2) the corporation’s depreciation expenses; and (3) with due regard for business realities, the amount of the corporation’s income which should equitably have been attributed to the parent. Criminal Non-Support & Related § 28-706 Criminal Non-Support; penalty; exceptions. (1) Any person who intentionally fails, refuses, or neglects to provide proper support which he or she knows or reasonably should know he or she is legally obliged to provide to a spouse, minor child, minor stepchild, or other dependent commits criminal nonsupport. (2) … (3) Support includes, but is not limited to, food, clothing, medical care, and shelter. (4) A designation of assets for or use of income by an individual in accordance with section 68- 922 shall be considered just cause for failure to use such assets or income to provide medical support of such individual’s spouse. (5) This section does not exclude any applicable civil remedy. (6) Except as provided in subsection (7) of this section, criminal nonsupport is a Class II misdemeanor. - 42 -
(7) Criminal nonsupport is a Class IV felony if it is in violation of any order of any court. Source: Laws 1977, LB 38, § 145; Laws 1978, LB 920, § 3; Laws 1988, LB 419, § 11; Laws 1989, LB 362, § 2; Laws 2006, LB 1248, § 52. Nebraska v. Eichelberger, 227 Neb. 545, 418 N. W.2d 580 (1988) Facts: Defendant fathered one child during his marriage. Later the parties separated and orders for child support were entered, while the defendant was present in court with counsel. He failed to comply with the order or pay support, leading to a criminal prosecution. Intent may be inferred from the words or acts of the defendant and from the circumstances surrounding the incident. The State proved that [the defendant] had resources with which he might have paid his past-due child support many times over. [Defendant] offered no evidence to overcome the inference that those resources were available to him had he wished to comply with the support orders. [I]t is a well-established principle that in a criminal case a court may take judicial notice of its own records in the case under consideration. In determining whether a criminal defendant is indigent as the term is used in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1804.04 (Reissue 1985), a court is to consider the seriousness of the offense; the defendant’s income; the availability of resources, including real and personal property, bank accounts, Social Security, and unemployment or other benefits; normal living expenses; outstanding debts; and the number and age of dependents. Exercise of the right to assistance of counsel is subject to the necessities of sound judicial administration. State v. Richter, supra. Criminal defendants are not permitted to use their constitutional right to counsel to manipulate or obstruct orderly procedure in the courts or to interfere with the fair administration of justice. State v. Bright, 238 Neb. 348, 470 N.W.2d 181 (1991) State v. Eichelberger, 227 Neb. 545, 418 N.W.2d 580 (1988) In the context of a criminal statute such as § 28-706, “intentionally” means willfully or purposely, and not accidentally or involuntarily. Intent may be inferred from the words or acts of the defendant and from the circumstances surrounding the incident. The determination of whether a defendant has the ability to pay child support in order to determine whether the failure to do so was intentional is a question of fact left to the jury. State v. McCrimon, 15 Neb. App. 452, 729 N.W.2d 682 (2007) Facts: Defendant was sentenced to intensive supervision probation (ISP) following conviction for insurance fraud. One condition required him to pay $200/mo. Toward his child support arrears, or be considered in violation of his probation. Defendant appealed. When a court sentences a defendant to probation, it may impose any conditions of probation that are authorized by statute. Requiring a probationer to pay child support is statutorily authorized under Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-2262(2) (Cum. Supp.2004). “…although the impact of the probation order in the instant case may be harsh, it is not unreasonable to expect [the defendant] to pay his preexisting child support obligation when he currently has an income and some assets. Additionally, the - 43 -
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: Finally, we conclude that for futur
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 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?