Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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



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

Any deviation from the guidelines must take into consideration the best interests of the children. The party requesting a deviation from the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines based upon an obligation to support offspring of a subsequent relationship bears the burden of providing evidence regarding the obligation, including the income of the other parent of the child or children of the subsequent relationship. Whether a child support order should be retroactive is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court and will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. Willcock v. Willcock, 12 Neb. App. 422, 675 N.W.2d 721 (2004) Interpretation of the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines presents a question of law, regarding which an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the court below. Workman v. Workman, 262 Neb. 373, 381, 632 N.W.2d 286, 294 (2001) This court has not set forth a rigid definition of what constitutes “income,” but has instead relied on a flexible, fact-specific inquiry that recognizes the wide variety of circumstances that may be presented in child support cases. The reasonable contributions of a parent’s [new spouse] to household expenses should not be included in the parent’s gross income for purposes of determining child support, but may be considered in determining whether the circumstances warrant a deviation from the Guidelines. Health Insurance/Cash Medical Support (See also Medicaid Reimbursement/ Medical Support) §42-369 . . . (2) (a) If the party against whom an order, decree, or judgment for child support is entered or the custodial party has health insurance available to him or her through an employer, organization, or other health insurance entity which may extend to cover any children affected by the order, decree, or judgment and the health care coverage is accessible to the children and is available to the responsible party at reasonable cost, the court shall require health care coverage to be provided. Health care coverage is accessible if the covered children can obtain services from a plan provider with reasonable effort by the custodial party. When the administrative agency, court, or other tribunal determines that the only health care coverage option available through the noncustodial party is a plan that limits service coverage to providers within a defined geographic area, the administrative agency, court, or other tribunal shall determine whether the child lives within the plan’s service area. If the child does not live within the plan’s service area, the administrative agency, court, or other tribunal shall determine whether the plan has a reciprocal agreement that permits the child to receive coverage at no greater cost than if the child resided in the plan’s service area. The administrative agency, court, or other tribunal shall also determine if primary care is available within thirty minutes or thirty miles of the child’s residence. For the purpose of determining the accessibility of health care coverage, the administrative agency, court, or other tribunal may determine and include in an order that longer travel times are permissible if residents, in part or all of the service area, customarily travel distances farther than thirty minutes or thirty miles. If primary care services are not available within these constraints, the health care coverage is presumed inaccessible. If - 90 -
health care coverage is not available or is inaccessible and one or more of the parties are receiving Title IV-D services, then cash medical support shall be ordered. Cash medical support or the cost of private health insurance is considered reasonable in cost if the cost to the party responsible for providing medical support does not exceed three percent of his or her gross income. In applying the three-percent standard, the cost is the cost of adding the children to existing health care coverage or the difference between self-only and family health care coverage. Cash medical support payments shall not be ordered if, at the time that the order is issued or modified, the responsible party’s income is or such expense would reduce the responsible party’s net income below the basic subsistence limitation provided in Nebraska Court Rule section 4-218. If such rule does not describe a basic subsistence limitation, the responsible party’s net income shall not be reduced below nine hundred three dollars net monthly income for one person or below the poverty guidelines updated annually in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). (b) For purposes of this section: (i) Health care coverage has the same meaning as in section 44-3,144; and (ii) Cash medical support means an amount ordered to be paid toward the cost of health insurance provided by a public entity or by another parent through employment or otherwise or for other medical costs not covered by insurance. . . . Source: Laws 1972, LB 820, § 23; Laws 1983, LB 371, § 11; Laws 1991, LB 457, § 4; Laws 1993, LB 435, § 1; Laws 2000, LB 972, § 15; Laws 2007, LB554, § 35; Laws 2009, LB288, § 6. Operative Date: Sept. 30, 2009 Please Note, the amendments to 42-369 (2) mandated by the Unicameral in 2009 changes the way new support orders address the medical coverage needs of children in all Title IV-D cases. The goal of both the federal and state child support agencies is to work to enact regulations and laws designed to reflect the general consensus that parents have the primary responsibility to meet their children’s needs, including health care coverage, and that when one or both parents can provide “accessible and affordable health care,” that coverage should not be replaced by the expenditure of public funds from Medicaid or other programs. Nebraska’s Unicameral, after much resistance from the State Bar Association, decided to adopt a 3% state standard, effective 9/30/09. This new definition has been worked into the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines. See the complete rule as amended here. The newest language, effective September 1, 2011, states as follows: § 4-215. Child(ren)’s health insurance, nonreimbursed health care expenses, and cash medical support in Title IV-D cases. . . . I Cash Medical Support and Health Care Costs for Title IV-D Cases Only. (i) All child support orders in the Title IV-D program must address how the parties will provide for the child(ren)’s health care needs through health care coverage and/or through cash medical support. Cash medical support or the cost of private health insurance is considered reasonable in cost if the cost to the party responsible for providing medical support for the child(ren) does not exceed 3 percent of his or her gross income. In applying the 3-percent standard, the cost is the cost of adding the child(ren) to existing health care coverage or the difference between self-only and family health care coverage. Cash medical support payment shall not be ordered if, at the time that the order is issued or modified, the responsible party’s income is, or such expense would reduce the responsible party’s net income, below the basic subsistence limitation provided in § 4-218. If a court orders a parent - 91 -
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 and 48: Finally, we conclude that for futur
Page 49 and 50: (7) Criminal nonsupport is a Class
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: Sears v. Larson, 259 Neb. 760, 612
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?