A-23-0149, State of California on behalf of Juniper N. (Appellee) v. James N. (Appellee) v. Audrey R. (Appellant)
Douglas County, District Judge Leigh Ann Retelsdorf
Attorneys for Appellant: David Pontier (Koenig Dunne, PC, LLO)
Attorney for Appellee State: Jessica Rasmussen & Megan E. Lutz-Priefert (Omaha Child Support Services)
Civil Action: Modification of Child Support
Action taken by Trial Court: The State of California, on behalf of Juniper N., sought to establish child support obligations for James N. Pursuant to the terms of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, the State of Nebraska was authorized to file an action against James in the district court for Douglas County. The district court ordered James to pay child support but did not provide for cost-sharing responsibilities between the parties as to out-of-pocket medical and childcare expenses.
A few months later Audrey R. filed a complaint to intervene as a third-party defendant and to modify the child support order. The district court allowed Audrey to intervene and referred the matter to a referee.
After a trial was held on the matter, the referee entered its report which recommended that James’ child support obligation be increased and retroactively commence on approximately the date of trial. The referee recommended a cost-sharing scheme between James and Audrey for out-of-pocket medical and childcare expenses, limited to Audreys work hours and in-class hours for her graduate program, and allowed James 1 year to provide Audrey with childcare reimbursements. The referee recommended that the parties alternate claiming Juniper for the tax dependency exemption. The referee noted that neither party should be ordered to provide health insurance for Juniper and was silent as to whether either party should pay cash medical support.
After a hearing on Audrey’s exceptions to the referee’s findings and recommendations, the district court entered an order adopting the referee’s report in full.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Audrey assigns that the district court abused its discretion by (1) not ordering either party to provide health insurance for Juniper without also ordering cash medical support; (2) not ordering retroactive child support to commence on the first day of the month after the filing of her complaint; (3) limiting Audrey’s childcare reimbursements to only her graduate program’s in-class hours; (4) allowing James 1 year to pay his outstanding childcare reimbursement; and (5) ordering the parties to alternate claiming Juniper on their respective annual tax returns.