STATE OF NEBRASKA ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF INDIANA AND FERNANDO L., A MINOR CHILD. APPELLEE,
ROGELIO L., APPELLANT.
Modification of Decree: Child Support: Appeal and
Error. Modification of child support payments is
entrusted to the trial court's discretion, and although,
on appeal, the issue is reviewed de novo on the record, the
decision of the trial court will be affirmed absent an abuse
Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse
of discretion exists when reasons or rulings of a trial judge
are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a
substantial right and denying just results in matters
submitted for disposition.
Child Support: Rules of the Supreme Court: Appeal and
Error. Interpretation of the Nebraska Child Support
Guidelines presents a question of law. An appellate court
resolves questions of law independently of the lower
Child Support: Rules of the Supreme Court.
In calculating a parent's child support obligation, the
Nebraska Child Support Guidelines permit a court to deduct a
parent's obligation to support subsequent children from
his or her monthly income in some circumstances.
__ . The Nebraska Supreme Court interprets the expression
"subsequent children" in Neb. Ct. R. § 4-220
to mean children born after an existing support order.
Modification of Decree: Child Support:
Proof. A party seeking to modify a child support
order must show a material change in circumstances which (1)
occurred subsequent to the entry of the original decree or
previous modification and (2) was not contemplated when the
decree was entered.
Child Support: Rules of the Supreme Court:
Taxes. In calculating a parent's monthly net
income for child support purposes, Neb. Ct. R. [299 Neb. 330]
§ 4-205(A) (rev. 2016) allows a deduction for taxes, as
established by standard deductions applicable to the number
of exemptions provided by law.
Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not
obligated to engage in an analysis which is not needed to
adjudicate the controversy before it.
from the District Court for Adams County: Terri S. Harder,
Judge. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded
L. Arango, of Arango Law, L.L.C., for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and James D. Smith for
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, and Funke, JJ.
L. appeals the order of the district court for Adams County
that dismissed his March 2, 2016, complaint for a downward
modification of his child support obligation to his son,
Fernando L., originally ordered at $388 per month on August
18, 2010. The district court concluded that Rogelio had not
shown a material change in circumstances warranting a
reduction in his monthly child support obligation to
Fernando. No tax returns or financial documents were in
evidence; Rogelio testified about his income and admitted
that he did not pay taxes. The district court determined that
Rogelio should not receive any deduction from his total
monthly income for taxes. The district court also found that
Rogelio's three "after-born" children could not
be used to lower his child support obligation to Fernando.
Rogelio appeals. We find no error in the district court's
determination regarding taxes and affirm this ruling.
However, because we conclude that the district court based
its child support calculation on an incorrect understanding
of the birth order of Rogelio's children relative to
Fernando and the 2010 child [299 Neb. 331] support order, we
reverse this aspect of the order and remand the cause with
Order In 2010, the State brought an action against Rogelio
pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act to
establish Rogelio's paternity of and child support
obligation to his son Fernando, who was born in June 2004 and
lived with his mother in Indiana. In an order filed August
18, 2010, the district court for Adams County found that
Rogelio was Fernando's father and ordered him to pay
child support of $388 per month. The district court based its
calculation on Rogelio's net monthly income of $1,
291.31, which took into account his regular support of two
other children. While the original support order did not
include the names or ages of these other children, it is