State on behalf of Fernando L. v. Rogelio L.

Citation: 299 Neb. 329Docket: S-17-348

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court; March 16, 2018; Nebraska; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Modification of child support payments is within the trial court's discretion, with appellate review conducted de novo; however, the trial court's decision will be upheld unless there is an abuse of discretion, which is defined as clearly untenable actions that deny a litigant substantial rights. In child support cases, the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines allow for deductions from a parent's income for obligations to support subsequent children, defined as those born after an existing support order. A party seeking modification must demonstrate a material change in circumstances that occurred after the original decree and was not anticipated at that time. For calculating net income, the guidelines permit tax deductions based on exemptions. Rogelio L. appealed a district court ruling that dismissed his request for a downward modification of his child support obligation, originally set at $388 per month for his son, Fernando L. The court found Rogelio failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances and ruled against any tax deductions since he did not provide tax documentation. Additionally, the court ruled that Rogelio's three subsequent children could not reduce his support obligation for Fernando. The appellate court affirmed the ruling on tax deductions but reversed the decision regarding the birth order of Rogelio's children, as it misunderstood the relationship to Fernando and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In 2010, the State initiated an action against Rogelio under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act to establish his paternity and child support obligation for his son Fernando, born in June 2004, who lived with his mother in Indiana. The Adams County district court ruled on August 18, 2010, that Rogelio was Fernando's father, ordering him to pay $388 monthly in child support, calculated based on his net income of $1,291.31, which considered his support for two other children, identified as Sheryl L., born in 2007, and a son born in 2009, who died in 2012.

On March 2, 2016, Rogelio sought to modify his child support obligation, claiming a material change in circumstances due to a decrease in income below federal poverty guidelines. A child support referee conducted a hearing and issued a report on October 31, 2016, noting Rogelio's net income as $1,733.33 per month from handyman work, without tax deductions. Despite inaccuracies regarding the ages and birth order of his children, the referee recommended reducing his child support to $346 per month, rejecting claims for tax deductions and poverty level arguments.

Rogelio contested the referee’s findings, asserting errors regarding his children's ages and the poverty guidelines. A subsequent hearing on February 28, 2017, included evidence from Rogelio, including birth certificates. The district court ultimately dismissed Rogelio’s complaint on March 17, 2017, noting the clarified birth order of his children, which included three born after Fernando, specifically in 2007, 2014, and 2015. The appeal follows this dismissal.

Evidence presented indicates that Fernando and two other children were born prior to a 2010 child support order, with support for the latter two included in that calculation. One of the two children died after the order but before current modification proceedings, and two additional children were born post-2010 order. Rogelio testified that Medicaid covers healthcare for Fernando’s surviving half-siblings and that his spouse was not employed but capable of work. His testimony revealed a decrease in his hourly wage from $15 to $10, with current earnings paid in cash and no taxes withheld. Although he acknowledged the legal obligation to pay taxes, he provided no tax returns or pay stubs. The district court received child support calculations from both Rogelio and the State, with Rogelio's including tax deductions and the State's not. The court adopted the State's calculations, dismissing Rogelio’s modification request in a March 17, 2017 order, citing factual errors in the referee’s report regarding the children's ages and birth order. It determined that all children, except Fernando, were 'after-born' relative to the 2010 order and thus did not warrant deductions for child support or taxes not paid. Consequently, the court recalculated Rogelio’s obligation, concluding it should increase due to the lack of deductions. Rogelio appealed, asserting that the court erred in its child support calculations and in failing to consider his tax liabilities, and requested a poverty assessment. The appeal standard indicates that modification of child support is at the trial court's discretion, affirmed unless there is an abuse of discretion, while legal interpretations of child support guidelines are reviewed independently.

Rogelio argues that the district court incorrectly calculated his child support obligations by misclassifying the birth order of his children. He asserts that the court failed to differentiate between children born before and after the 2010 child support order for Fernando. The Nebraska Child Support Guidelines allow for deductions from a parent's income for support of subsequent children, defined as those born after an existing support order. However, the court's interpretation categorically labeled all of Rogelio’s children born after Fernando as "after-born," which led to an erroneous conclusion that Rogelio could not deduct support for them.

The court's findings conflicted with the evidence, particularly regarding Sheryl, who was born in 2007, prior to the 2010 order. The chronological order of events indicates that two children, including Sheryl, were considered in the 2010 support calculations. While the court correctly excluded deductions for Rogelio’s deceased son, it incorrectly excluded Sheryl from consideration. The case focuses on modifying the 2010 order, which was based on Rogelio's obligations to Fernando and two other children. Trial courts have discretion on how to calculate deductions for subsequent children, as established by relevant case law and the guidelines.

The district court incorrectly classified Sheryl as a child after the 2010 order, failing to consider Rogelio's entitlement to a deduction for her support as previously established. This misinterpretation of facts resulted in an erroneous application of the law and calls into question the calculation underlying the district court’s order. Consequently, the decision is deemed an abuse of discretion, leading to a reversal and remand for recalculation based on the February 28, 2017 hearing evidence.

Regarding Rogelio's tax liability, the court did not err in denying him a deduction for unpaid taxes due to a lack of supporting documentation. To determine a parent’s monthly net income for child support, the guidelines require tax returns, financial statements, and wage stubs, which Rogelio failed to provide. Although he testified about his income, his admission of not paying taxes supported the district court's decision to not deduct taxes from his income. The court's reliance on limited evidence presented by Rogelio aligns with past rulings where insufficient documentation hindered accurate income assessment. Thus, the district court’s refusal to deduct taxes from Rogelio's income is affirmed.

Additionally, Rogelio argued that the court did not consider the basic subsistence limitation that ensures net income does not fall below federal poverty guidelines.

The appellate court has rejected the district court's child support calculation and reversed the March 17, 2017, order, remanding the case for a new calculation in line with established guidelines, while affirming the district court's ruling on tax matters. It emphasized that an appellate court is not required to analyze issues unnecessary for resolving the case. The court noted that on remand, the basic subsistence limitation may be considered in the child support calculation. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by misinterpreting evidence related to the children's birth order and Rogelio’s support obligations as per the 2010 order. The decision is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further action. Judges Wright and Kelch did not participate in this decision.