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.
Note: In July 2008 the Federal <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Regulations were changed to define the term<br />
“reasonable in cost” as it pertains to the cost of a parent paying for dependent health<br />
insurance, or in the alternative, being ordered to pay “Cash Medical <strong>Support</strong>” for his or her<br />
minor child(ren). This new definition at last puts to rest much confusion about just what is a<br />
reasonable cost for dependent health insurance. See (45 CFR 303.31(a)(3)) for the federal<br />
definition.<br />
Changes to <strong>Nebraska</strong>’s child support guidelines effective September 30, 2009 reflect these<br />
updated federal definitions. <strong>Nebraska</strong>’s Unicameral passed LB 288 (codified at § 42-369),<br />
effective September 30, 2009. The law incorporates the concept of “Cash Medical <strong>Support</strong>”<br />
into our child support law. Cash Medical <strong>Support</strong> will have to be addressed, and likely ordered to<br />
be paid by the parent obligated to pay child support in all IV-D child support cases where the<br />
obligated parent is unable due to financial limitations or the lack of access to dependent<br />
health insurance to provide dependent health insurance for his or her minor child(ren).<br />
Note: A court may satisfy the federal requirement of Cash Medical by merely ordering the<br />
parent to share in a % of the uncovered medical expenses of the minor child, or the court can<br />
choose to order the parent to pay 3% of the parent’s gross monthly income. If a dollar figure<br />
is set, cash medical support will be paid like child support, through income withholding<br />
where possible, to the <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> <strong>Support</strong> Payment Center.<br />
Under <strong>Nebraska</strong> law, “Cash medical support or the cost of private health insurance is<br />
considered reasonable in cost if the cost to the party responsible for providing medical<br />
support does not exceed three percent of his or her gross income. In applying the threepercent<br />
standard, the cost is the cost of adding the children to existing health care coverage<br />
or the difference between self-only and family health care coverage. Cash medical support<br />
payments shall not be ordered if, at the time that the order is issued or modified, the<br />
responsible party’s income is or such expense would reduce the responsible party’s net<br />
income below the basic subsistence limitation provided in <strong>Nebraska</strong> Court Rule section 4-<br />
218.”<br />
Brandt v. Brandt, 227 Neb. 325, 327, 417 N.W.2d 339, 341 (1988), overruled on other<br />
grounds, Druba v. Druba, 238 Neb. 279, 470 N.W.2d 176 (1991).<br />
A judge may not satisfy his duty to act equitably toward all concerned, i.e., the<br />
parties and the children, by blindly following suggested guidelines.<br />
Brockman v. Brockman, 264 Neb. 106, 646 N.W.2d 594 (2002)<br />
[F]ood stamps are means-tested public assistance benefits that are excluded from<br />
income pursuant to [§ 4-204] of the Guidelines.<br />
Brooks v. Brooks, 261 Neb. 289, 622 N.W.2d 670 (2001)<br />
The guidelines offer flexibility and guidance, with the understanding that not every<br />
child support scenario will fit neatly into the calculation structure.<br />
There is no precise mathematical formula applicable to situations where a court<br />
deviates from the guidelines when children from subsequent relationships are<br />
involved. Subsequent familial relationships vary widely from case to case.<br />
When a deviation from the guidelines is appropriate, the trial court should<br />
consider both parents’ support obligations to all children involved in the<br />
relationships. In considering the obligation to those subsequent children, the trial<br />
- 83 -