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.
court should take into consideration the income of the other parent of these children<br />
as well as any other equitable considerations.<br />
When a trial court deviates from the child support guidelines in setting support,<br />
the court shall also state the amount of support that would have been required<br />
under the guidelines, absent the deviation. The reason for the deviation should<br />
also be stated, and/or the court should create worksheet 5 from the guidelines and<br />
file it in the court file. (See also Rutherford v. Rutherford, 277 Neb. 301 (Feb.<br />
2009).<br />
Claborn v. Claborn, 267 Neb. 201, 673 N.W.2d 533 (2004)<br />
[§ 4-204] of the guidelines also provides that if applicable, earning capacity may be<br />
considered in lieu of a parent’s actual, present income and may include factors such<br />
as work history, education, occupational skills, and job opportunities.<br />
Coffey v. Coffey, 11 Neb. App. 788, 661 N.W.2d 327 (2003)<br />
Alimony paid to the non-custodial parent by the custodial parent is not income<br />
for purposes of calculating the child support obligation of the non-custodial parent.<br />
Kelly v. Kelly, 2 Neb. App. 399, 510 N.W.2d 90 (1993), reversed on other grounds<br />
246 Neb. 55, 516 N.W.2d 612 (1994).<br />
Because alimony is not properly considered as income when child support is<br />
established, the cessation of alimony cannot be considered a diminution in income<br />
when determining whether there has been a material change of circumstances<br />
justifying a modification of child support. See also Gallner v. Hoffman, 264 Neb.<br />
995, 653 N.W.2d 838 (2002)<br />
Czaplewski v. Czaplewski, 240 Neb. 629, 483 N.W.2d 751 (1992)<br />
Wilkins v. Wilkins, 269 Neb. 937, 697 N.W.2d 280 (2005)<br />
<strong>Child</strong> support guidelines are just that – guidelines. A trial judge does not satisfy<br />
his duty to equitably determine child support by blindly following suggested<br />
guidelines. The court may deviate from the guidelines where one or both parties<br />
have provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the guidelines<br />
should be applied.<br />
Trial court’s allowance for the father’s present family when determining child<br />
support for the previous family is allowed.<br />
Modification of an award of child support is not justified unless the applicant proves<br />
that a material change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the<br />
decree or a previous modification.<br />
Drew on Behalf of Reed v. Reed, 16 Neb. App. 905, 755 N.W.2d 420 (2008)<br />
Joint physical custody means the child lives day in and day out with both parents<br />
on a rotating basis.<br />
Numerous parenting times with a child do not constitute joint physical custody.<br />
Liberal parenting time does not justify a joint custody child support calculation.<br />
Elsome v. Elsome, 257 Neb. 889, 601 N.W.2d 537 (1999)<br />
Deviations from the child support guidelines are to be ordered with explicitness.<br />
- 84 -