Affidavits: Appeal and Error. A district
court's denial of in forma pauperis status is reviewed de
novo on the record based on the transcript of the hearing or
written statement of the court.
Affidavits: Evidence. An analysis of an
applicant's eligibility for in forma pauperis status will
necessarily be dependent on the facts and circumstances
presented by that applicant's financial and personal
from the District Court for Douglas County: Peter C.
Cortes Reyes, of Immigrant Legal Center, an affiliate of the
Justice for Our Neighbors Network, and David V. Chipman, of
Monzon, Guerra & Associates, for appellant.
appearance for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik,
and Freudenberg, JJ.
district court entered a decree dissolving the marriage of
Ariana Bernal Sabino and Juan Carlos Genchi Ozuna, but denied
Sabino's petition for findings of fact regarding the [303
Neb. 319] abuse, abandonment, and neglect of her children by
Ozuna. Sabino filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal. After a hearing, that motion was denied. Sabino has
appealed that denial. We reverse the district court's
denial of Sabino's request for in forma pauperis status
and remand the cause with directions to grant Sabino's
decree dissolving the marriage of Sabino and Ozuna was
entered on January 11, 2018. At that time, the district court
denied Sabino's motion seeking findings of fact regarding
abuse, abandonment, and neglect of her children by their
filed a notice of appeal on February 6, 2018. Accompanying
that notice of appeal was a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. The supporting poverty affidavit stated that Sabino
had $200 on hand, no checking or savings account funds, had
been unemployed until recently, and listed expenses of $2,
842. The affidavit also indicated that she lived with her
partner and her four minor children. Sabino further noted
that until she had recently obtained employment, her partner
had been her "sole provider," and that she was
unable to pay the fee or provide security for her appeal.
district court set a hearing on its own motion, in which it
sought information regarding the income of Sabino's
partner. The district court noted that it "assume[d] the
partner is assisting in these bills, or assisting in some
other way. If they're partners, then, I take it, all of
his money is her money or all her money is her money or
whatever. So that's what I'm asking here."
provided at the hearing indicated that Sabino and her four
children resided with the partner, but that the couple was
not married and that the partner was the biological father of
only the youngest child. At the time of the hearing, Sabino
had just begun a job that paid $9.75 per hour, explaining
that she believed she should eventually earn [303 Neb. 320]
approximately $1, 690 per month. In addition, questioning
from the district court revealed that the couple had two
cars, both titled in the partner's name, one of which was
driven by Sabino. Monthly expenses addressed at the ...