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 at the trial court's discretion, and appellate review is de novo, affirming absent an abuse of discretion. An abuse occurs when a trial judge's rulings are untenable, depriving a party of substantial rights. The interpretation of the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines is a legal question reviewed independently. The guidelines allow for deductions from a parent's income for support of subsequent children, defined as those born after an existing support order. To modify a child support order, a party must demonstrate a material change in circumstances post-decree that was not anticipated at the decree's issuance.

In this case, Rogelio L. appealed the dismissal of his request to reduce his child support obligation for his son, Fernando L., originally set at $388 per month in 2010. The district court found no material change in circumstances justifying a reduction, noting the absence of financial evidence, as Rogelio did not submit tax returns and admitted he did not pay taxes, thus disallowing tax deductions from his income. The court also ruled that Rogelio's three subsequent children could not be considered for lowering his obligation to Fernando. The Supreme Court affirmed the tax ruling but reversed the decision regarding the consideration of Rogelio's subsequent children due to a misunderstanding of their birth order relative to Fernando and remanded the case for further proceedings.

On August 18, 2010, the Adams County district court determined that Rogelio is the father of Fernando and mandated a child support payment of $388 per month, based on Rogelio's net monthly income of $1,291.31, which factored in his support obligations for two other children. The names and ages of these children were not specified, but they were identified as Sheryl L., born in 2007, and a son born in 2009, who reportedly 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 that fell below federal poverty guidelines. A child support referee conducted a hearing and reported on October 31, 2016, noting Rogelio's testimony of a net income of $1,733.33 per month from handyman work, without tax liabilities. Although Rogelio stated he had an "older child" who was 8 years old alongside two younger children aged 1 and 2, this was inaccurate as Fernando was 12 years old at the time. The referee recommended reducing Rogelio’s child support to $346 per month after considering the support for the "8-year-old," but rejected deductions for tax liabilities and claims of poverty.

Rogelio contested the referee's report, arguing inaccuracies regarding his children's ages and the application of poverty guidelines. A hearing was held on February 28, 2017, where Rogelio presented evidence, including birth certificates, to clarify the ages of his children. The district court ultimately dismissed Rogelio's complaint in a March 17, 2017 order, noting that at the time of the hearing, he and his spouse had three children born after Fernando, with their birth years being 2007, 2014, and 2015. The court recognized that support for the two other children was included in the original 2010 support calculation, and that one child had died prior to the modification proceedings. It was also noted that healthcare for Fernando’s surviving half-siblings was covered by Medicaid and that Rogelio's spouse was not employed but was capable of working.

Rogelio testified that he previously earned $15 per hour with tax deductions but was currently receiving $10 per hour in cash without tax payments, understanding his legal obligation to pay taxes. The district court received child support calculations from both Rogelio and the State, where Rogelio's calculations accounted for taxes while the State's did not. The district court adopted the State's calculations, leading to a dismissal of Rogelio's modification request on March 17, 2017. The court identified factual errors in the referee’s report regarding the ages and birth order of Rogelio's children, noting that Fernando was the oldest and that the other children were “after-born” in relation to him. Consequently, no deductions were made for these other children in the child support calculations. The court also rejected Rogelio’s argument for a tax deduction from his income, concluding that since he did not pay taxes, he could not claim a deduction. As a result, the court recalculated Rogelio's child support obligation, which it determined should increase due to the lack of deductions for his other children and taxes. Rogelio appealed the order, asserting that the court erred in its child support calculations based on the incorrect birth order of his children and in failing to deduct his tax liability. He requested a poverty assessment of his circumstances. The appeal process will review the child support modification under the trial court's discretion, affirming unless there is an abuse of discretion, while questions of law regarding the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines will be assessed independently. The analysis indicates that the district court erred in its findings related to the birth order of the children, as the guidelines allow for consideration of support obligations for subsequent children in certain circumstances.

Neb. Ct. R. 4-220 establishes that an obligor cannot reduce existing child support obligations solely due to the birth or adoption of subsequent children, defined as those born after the establishment of the support order. Such subsequent children may, however, be considered in defense against an upward modification of the support order. A modification requires proof of a material change in circumstances after the original decree, which was unforeseen at that time. 

In a relevant case, the district court mistakenly classified all of Rogelio’s children, except for Fernando, as "after-born," leading to a denial of deductions for their support. Specifically, it incorrectly deemed Sheryl, born in 2007, as a subsequent child despite her being acknowledged in the 2010 support order. The court's misclassification indicated a misunderstanding of the existing support obligations and failed to account for Rogelio's entitlement to a deduction for Sheryl’s support. 

The ruling also noted that the district court has discretion in calculating deductions for subsequent children but failed to apply this correctly in Rogelio’s case. Consequently, the court's decision was deemed an abuse of discretion, warranting reversal and remand for recalculation based on the full record from the February 28, 2017 hearing. Additionally, Rogelio contends that the court erred by not allowing a tax deduction from his monthly income for unpaid tax liabilities.

The district court's handling of Rogelio's tax liability in its 2017 order was affirmed due to a lack of sufficient evidence presented by Rogelio. Under Nebraska court rules, deductions for taxes in determining a parent’s monthly net income for child support require the submission of tax returns, financial statements, and wage stubs. Rogelio failed to provide any tax returns or supporting documentation during the modification hearing, relying solely on his testimony that he earned $400 weekly in cash and did not pay taxes, despite being legally obligated to do so. This limited evidence hindered the court's ability to accurately assess his income for child support calculations, aligning with previous case law that highlighted the consequences of failing to submit proper documentation.

Rogelio also contested the district court’s failure to apply the basic subsistence limitation, which prevents child support obligations from reducing a parent's net income below federal poverty guidelines. However, since the court rejected the child support calculation apart from the tax ruling and reversed the order, the appellate court deemed it unnecessary to address this issue at this time. On remand, consideration of the subsistence limitation may be appropriate after recalculating child support in line with the guidelines.

In conclusion, while the court affirmed the decision regarding the treatment of taxes, it reversed the child support calculation due to errors in understanding the evidence related to Rogelio's obligations, remanding the case for a proper recalculation based on the record.