Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Smith v. Smith, 201 Neb. 21, 265 N.W.2d 855 (1978)
In rare cases a court may find that a party is equitably estopped.from collecting installments
accruing after some affirmative action.which would ordinarily terminate future installments.
“The securing of the consent of the father to an adoption by another of his child is
such action which by its nature should terminate.further liability for child support.”
“The courts of other jurisdictions are not in agreement as to.whether a consent to an
adoption will terminate future child.support.installments if the adoption is not
completed. We believe.strong equitable considerations support those cases holding
it should do so.”
But see… Williams v. Williams, 206 Neb. 630, 294 N.W.2d 357 (1980), limiting Smith.
State on Behalf of Hopkins v. Batt, 253 Neb. 852, 573 N.W.2d 425 (1998)
Equitable estoppel is a bar which precludes a party from denying or asserting
anything to the contrary of those matters established as the truth by his own deeds,
acts, or representations.
The elements of equitable estoppel are, as to the party estopped,
(1) conduct which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material
facts or, at least, which is calculated to convey the impression that the facts
are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently
attempts to assert;
(2) the intention, or at least the expectation, that such conduct shall be acted
upon by, or influence, the other party or other persons; and
(3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts; and as to the other party,
(4) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts
in question;
(5) reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be
estopped; and
(6) action or inaction based thereon of such a character as to change the position
or status of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment, or
prejudice.
[See also Truman v. Truman, 256 Neb. 628, 591 N.W.2d 81 (1999)]
Someone who is not a party to the pending court action may not be estopped.
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.
A private agreement between parents that would deprive a child of support from one
parent contravenes the public policy of this. State.
[B]ecause the right to support belonged to [the child], any. Agreement made or
actions taken by [the mother] would not be the. Basis for equitable estoppel in this
paternity and child support action brought by the State on the child’s behalf.
Even though the State fashioned the action as one brought on behalf of both the
mother and the child, at least with regard to issues of support, this action is one
brought on behalf of the child. To secure her right to support. Therefore, whether or
not the. Mother should be equitably estopped from seeking any sort of relief for
herself, the State was not estopped from seeking support on the child’s behalf in this
action.
- 74 -