- 83 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

Mirab Lasu, appellee, v.

Hussein Issak, appellan

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed July 28, 2015. No. A-14-478.

1. Appeal and Error. In order to be considered by an appellate court, an 

alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued 

in the brief of the party asserting the error.

2. Affidavits: Appeal and Error. A district court’s denial of in forma 

pauperis status under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2008) is 

reviewed de novo on the record based on the transcript of the hearing or 

the written statement of the court.

3. Child Custody: Property Division: Child Support: Alimony.

Domestic matters such as child custody, division of property, child support, and alimony are entrusted to the discretion of trial courts.

4. Appeal and Error. A trial court’s determinations on domestic matters 

are reviewed de novo on the record to determine whether there has been 

an abuse of discretion by the trial judge.

5. Judgments: Appeal and Error. In reviewing orders on domestic matters, an appellate court conducts its own appraisal of the record to determine whether the trial court’s judgments are untenable such as to have 

denied justice.

6. Child Support: Rules of the Supreme Court: Appeal and Error.

Interpretation of the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines presents a 

question of law, regarding which an appellate court is obligated to 

reach a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the 

court below.

7. Fees: Time: Appeal and Error. After the district court denies a request 

to proceed in forma pauperis, the appellant has 30 days to appeal the 

ruling or proceed by paying the docket fee.

8. Child Support: Rules of the Supreme Court: Presumptions.

In general, child support payments should be set according to the 
- 84 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

Nebraska Child Support Guidelines, which are applied as a rebuttable 

presumption.

9. ____: ____: ____. All orders for child support obligations shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the Nebraska Child Support 

Guidelines unless the court finds that one or both parties have produced 

sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the guidelines should 

be applied.

10. Child Support: Rules of the Supreme Court. The trial court may 

deviate from the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines whenever the 

application of the guidelines in an individual case would be unjust 

or inappropriate.

11. ____: ____. The main principle behind the Nebraska Child Support 

Guidelines is to recognize the equal duty of both parents to contribute to the support of their children in proportion to their respective 

net incomes.

12. ____: ____. Absent a clearly articulated justification, any deviation from 

the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines is an abuse of discretion.

13. ____: ____. If the district court fails to indicate that a deviation from 

Neb. Ct. R. § 4-218 (rev. 2014) is warranted, it abuses its discretion if its 

child support order drives the obligor’s income below the poverty line 

set forth in § 4-218.

14. Child Support. There is no precise mathematical formula for calculating child support when subsequent children are involved.

15. ____. Calculation of child support when subsequent children are 

involved is left to the discretion of the court as long as the court considered the obligations to both families and the income of the other parent 

of the subsequent children.

16. Child Support: Rules of the Supreme Court. When a deviation 

from the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines is appropriate, the trial 

court should consider both parents’ support obligations to all children 

involved in the relationships.

17. Child Support. In considering the obligation to subsequent children, the 

trial court should take into consideration the income of the other parent 

of these children as well as any other equitable considerations.

18. ____. The specific formula for making calculations for the obligation to 

subsequent children is left to the discretion of the trial court, as long as 

the basic principle that both families are treated as fairly as possible is 

adhered to.

19. ____. In ordering child support, a trial court has discretion to choose if 

and how to calculate the deviation, but must do so in a manner that does 

not benefit one family at the expense of the other.
- 85 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

20. Child Support: Rules of the Supreme Court. A parent’s support, 

childcare, and health care obligation shall not reduce his or her net 

income below the minimum net monthly obligation for one person, or 

the poverty guidelines updated annually in the Federal Register by the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under authority of 42 

U.S.C. § 9902(2), except minimum support may be ordered as defined 

in Neb. Ct. R. § 4-209.

21. ____: ____. Under Neb. Ct. R. § 4-218 (rev. 2014), the minimum net 

monthly child support obligation for one person is derived from the 

Federal Register poverty guidelines.

22. Child Support. When dealing with a situation where a parent’s household is not a one-person household, the poverty guidelines as updated 

annually in the Federal Register should be used as the resource for 

determining the basic subsistence level for that household.

23. ____. To determine an obligor’s net income for calculating support obligations, a court subtracts the following annualized deductions from the 

obligor’s gross income: taxes, FICA, allowable retirement contributions, 

previous court-ordered child support to other children, and allowable 

voluntary support payments to other children.

24. Child Support: Rules of the Supreme Court. Under the Nebraska 

Child Support Guidelines, to determine if the obligor’s income exceeds 

the minimum subsistence level, a court deducts the obligor’s support obligations that are specified in the guidelines from the obligor’s 

net income.

25. ____: ____. When an obligor’s combined household income is below 

the poverty guidelines as updated annually in the Federal Register, the 

district court should order minimum support pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. 

§ 4-209 or otherwise set forth specific reasons for deviating from the 

basic subsistence requirement.

26. ____: ____. Under the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines, it is recommended that in very low income cases, a minimum support of $50 or 

10 percent of the obligor’s net income, whichever is greater, per month 

be set.

27. Child Support. When determining child support in a complex multifamily situation, trial courts should be careful not to order a disproportionate amount of a child support obligor’s net income to go to the 

children at issue and the goal must be for fairness for all the children for 

whom a parent must provide support.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Thom

A. Otepka, Judge. Reversed and remanded with direction
- 86 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

Patrick McCormick for appellant.

Brandie M. Fowler and Kyle C. Allen, of Higgins Law, for 

appellee.

Inbody, Pirtle, and Bishop, Jud

Bishop, Judge

Hussein Issak appeals from a decree of paternity entered 

by the Douglas County District Court, which established his 

paternity of two minor children he had with Mirab Lasu and 

ordered him to pay child support in the amount of $613 per 

month. On appeal, Issak argues that the district court did not 

properly consider the federal poverty guidelines when establishing his support obligation; namely, he argues the district 

court failed to take into consideration that he is the head of a 

10-person household where the combined income is below the 

federal poverty guidelines.

This case requires us to address language contained at Neb. 

Ct. R. § 4-218 (rev. 2014) which has evaded consideration by 

our appellate courts to date. In 2014 (the year applicable to this 

appeal), § 4-218 set forth a basic subsistence limitation based 

upon a “minimum of $973 net monthly for one person, or the 

poverty guidelines updated annually in the Federal Register.” 

(Emphasis supplied.) We conclude that the italicized language 

requires looking at the poverty guideline table found in the 

Federal Register when an obligor’s household consists of more 

than one person. Since § 4-218 was not properly considered by 

the district court in determining child support in this case, we 

reverse, and remand with directions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Issak was married in Kenya before he and his wife moved 

to the United States. Issak and his wife have a total of eight 

children together, three born in Kenya (in 1999, 2000, and 

2002) and five born in Douglas County, Nebraska (in 2006, 

2008, 2010, 2012, and 2013). At all times during the district 
- 87 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

court proceedings below, Issak and his wife remained married 

and lived together.

While still married to his wife, Issak also had two children 

with Lasu: Samuel Lasu, born in 2010, and Daniel Lasu, born 

in 2012. Lasu also has six children from a previous marriage; 

two reside with her.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 10, 2012, Lasu filed a complaint for paternity, 

custody, and support against Issak, alleging that he was the 

biological father of her minor child, Samuel. According to 

a motion filed by Lasu on July 3, the parties had entered 

into an agreement resolving all issues in her complaint, and 

on July 16, the district court entered a decree of paternity 

and support, ordering Issak to pay $500.54 per month for 

Samuel’s support.

On July 25, 2012, Issak filed a motion to vacate the paternity decree (through newly retained counsel), alleging that he 

did not know or understand the contents of the decree and 

that his support obligation brought him below the poverty line 

for his household (including Issak, his wife, and their seven 

children at the time of the motion). Following a hearing, the 

court entered an order on August 1, granting Issak’s motion 

to vacate.

On August 23, 2012, without leave of court, Lasu filed 

an amended complaint against Issak for paternity, custody, 

and support seeking to establish paternity and support for a 

second minor child, Daniel, born subsequent to her initial 

complaint for paternity. Upon Issak’s request, the court treated 

this amended complaint as the operative complaint and permitted Issak to file an answer to the amended complaint on 

August 29.

No action was taken in the case for several months, and in 

February 2013, Lasu’s attorney was permitted to withdraw.

On May 3, 2013, through newly retained counsel, Lasu 

filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint 

for paternity and a motion for temporary orders. The court 
- 88 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

entered an order on June 4, granting Lasu’s motion to file a 

second amended complaint. Lasu filed her second amended 

complaint on July 2, seeking the court to establish Issak as the 

father of both Samuel and Daniel, to award her sole physical 

custody, and to order Issak to pay child support. Issak filed 

an answer on July 23, raising the “Affirmative Defense” and 

“Counterclaim” that the Nebraska and federal poverty guidelines are applicable to the case.

On August 28, 2013, Lasu filed another motion for temporary orders. The district court entered a temporary order on 

November 1, awarding Lasu sole legal and physical custody of 

Samuel and Daniel, and ordering Issak to pay $591 per month 

in child support commencing November 1.

On November 5, 2013, Issak filed a motion for relief from 

the temporary order, alleging that he and his wife added 

another child to their household subsequent to his July 25, 

2012, motion to vacate (for a total of eight minor children 

with his wife), and he sought a deviation from the child 

support guidelines, seeking to pay $50 per month for both 

Samuel and Daniel. Lasu filed an objection to this motion 

on December 6, 2013. The court overruled Issak’s motion on 

December 19.

Apparently, the parties were able to resolve all issues raised 

in Lasu’s second amended complaint with the exception of 

Issak’s child support obligation for Samuel and Daniel, and 

trial was held on April 16, 2014, to resolve that sole issue. The 

parties stipulated that Issak was the natural father of Samuel 

and Daniel; that Lasu was a fit and proper person to have sole 

legal and physical custody of the minor children, subject to 

Issak’s weekly visitation; that Lasu would pay up to $480 of 

nonreimbursable medical expenses, per child, per year; and 

that Lasu would claim the dependency exemptions.

For purposes of calculating child support, the parties stipulated that Issak’s wife’s total monthly income was $1,386.67 

and that she and Issak had eight minor children in their 

household. The parties further stipulated that Lasu pays $171 

in child support to the father of her six other children, two 
- 89 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

of whom reside in her household. The parties further stipulated to the exhibits entered into evidence: Issak’s 2013 tax 

return, child support payment history report from the Nebraska 

Department of Health and Human Services, Lasu’s pay statement, Issak’s pay statement, Lasu’s 2013 tax return, and two 

proposed child support calculations submitted by Issak and 

Lasu as aids to the court.

Both parties used $975 for Lasu’s total monthly income and 

$2,415.88 for Issak’s total monthly income in their child support calculations. Lasu’s proposed calculation provided that 

Issak’s child support obligation was $613 for two children and 

was $423 for one. Lasu arrived at this figure by first completing a joint physical custody support calculation between Issak 

and his wife (using his wife’s stipulated income), and she 

determined that Issak would hypothetically owe his wife $318 

per month in support under a joint physical custody arrangement. Lasu represented to the court that this first calculation 

“already contemplates the poverty guidelines and makes the 

required adjustment pursuant to the Nebraska Child Support 

Guidelines Section 4-218.” Lasu then stated she provided 

Issak credit for his preborn children by incorporating that $318 

figure into her proposed calculation between Issak and Lasu as 

Issak’s “regular support for other children.”

Issak calculated that his support obligation for his two 

children with Lasu would be $91, using a two-step calculation. First, he calculated what child support he would have to 

pay his wife if she was awarded custody of six of their eight 

children (because the income shares table went up to only 

six children); his calculation resulted in $1,231 in monthly 

child support. Issak then used that figure as a credit to be 

applied in his calculation of support owed to Lasu for Samuel 

and Daniel.

On May 12, 2014, the court entered an order for paternity, custody, and support. The court’s order states that the 

parties had reached an agreement with regard to paternity 

and custody, and adduced evidence related to Issak’s obligation to provide child support to Samuel and Daniel. The 
- 90 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

order established Issak as the father of the minor children, 

and Lasu was awarded sole legal and physical custody. The 

court adopted Lasu’s proposed child support calculation and 

ordered Issak to pay support in the amount of $613 per month 

for both children commencing May 1, 2014. The court found 

and ordered that Lasu’s “Exhibit 16 comports with the spirit 

and intent of Prochaska v. Prochaska, 6 Neb. App. 302, 

573 N.W.2d 777 (1998), as well as Nebraska Child Support 

Guideline Sections 4-205 and 4-220 . . . . This amount and 

the deviation are in the best interests of the minor children 

at issue.” The net income figure for Issak relied upon by the 

court was $1,729, which was arrived at after deductions for 

taxes, FICA, retirement, and $318 attributed to support for 

Issak’s other children.

On May 22, 2014, Issak filed a notice of appeal and an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis; attached to his application was a poverty affidavit asserting he has eight children 

and a wife who reside in his household and averring that 

his monthly expenses exceeded his adjusted gross income 

and that he receives “approximately $700 per month from 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.” On May 23, 

Lasu filed an objection to Issak’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis. A hearing on Issak’s application was held on 

June 11. Issak testified he thought he had about $90 in his 

bank account. On June 16, the district court entered an order 

concluding that Issak had not established evidence that he was 

unable to pay the expected fees and costs for his appeal, and it 

denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On July 14, 2014, Issak paid the statutory docket fee; he did 

not file an appeal of the denial of his application to proceed in 

forma pauperis.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On appeal, Issak argues, summarized and restated, that the 

district court erred (1) in denying his application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and (2) in determining that his child support 

obligation was $613 per month commencing May 1, 2014.
- 91 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

[1] Although Issak appears to argue in the body of his brief 

about the temporary child support orders and award of attorney 

fees awarded to Lasu during the pendency of the action, Issak 

did not assign any errors beyond the two stated above. In order 

to be considered by an appellate court, an alleged error must be 

both specifically assigned and specifically argued in the brief 

of the party asserting the error. Irwin v. West Gate Bank, 288 

Neb. 353, 848 N.W.2d 605 (2014).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[2] A district court’s denial of in forma pauperis status under 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2008) is reviewed de 

novo on the record based on the transcript of the hearing or the 

written statement of the court. Peterson v. Houston, 284 Neb. 

861, 824 N.W.2d 26 (2012).

[3-5] Domestic matters such as child custody, division of 

property, child support, and alimony are entrusted to the discretion of trial courts. Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N.W.2d 

67 (2007). A trial court’s determinations on such issues are 

reviewed de novo on the record to determine whether there 

has been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. Id. Under 

this standard, an appellate court conducts its own appraisal of 

the record to determine whether the trial court’s judgments are 

untenable such as to have denied justice. Id.

[6] Interpretation of the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines 

presents a question of law, regarding which an appellate court 

is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the court below. Gress, supra.

ANALYSIS

Denial of In Forma Pauperis.

[7] We first address Issak’s claim that the district court 

erred in denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal. After the district court denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis on June 16, 2014, he had 30 days to 

appeal the ruling or proceed by paying the docket fee. See 

§ 25-2301.02(1). See, also, Glass v. Kenney, 268 Neb. 704, 
- 92 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

687 N.W.2d 907 (2004); Martin v. McGinn, 265 Neb. 403, 

657 N.W.2d 217 (2003). Instead of appealing the denial of 

his request for in forma pauperis status, Issak paid the statutory docket fee on July 14, 2014. Having chosen to pay the 

docket fee rather than appeal the denial of his request for in 

forma pauperis status, Issak cannot now be heard to complain 

of this issue.

Child Support.

Issak argues the district court abused its discretion in its 

determination of his child support obligation for Samuel and 

Daniel, because the income for his family of 10 is below the 

poverty guidelines as updated in the Federal Register, even 

prior to any order of child support, and therefore the court 

should have ordered him to pay only minimum support pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 4-209.

In its May 12, 2014, “Order for Paternity, Custody & 

Support,” the district court found and ordered that Lasu’s 

“Exhibit 16 comports with the spirit and intent of Prochaska 

v. Prochaska, 6 Neb. App. 302, 573 N.W.2d 777 (1998), as 

well as Nebraska Child Support Guideline Sections 4-205 

and 4-220 . . . . This amount and the deviation are in the best 

interests of the minor children at issue.” The court’s reference 

to Prochaska v. Prochaska, 6 Neb. App. 302, 573 N.W.2d 

777 (1998), indicates that consideration was given to Issak’s 

obligation to support children in more than one family, and 

the court’s references to Neb. Ct. R. §§ 4-205 (deductions) 

and 4-220 (duty to support subsequent children as defense 

for upward modification of existing support order) indicate 

consideration of these particular factors. However, there is 

no indication that the court considered the application of 

§ 4-218 (basic subsistence limitation) on the child support 

ordered; perhaps because on its face, the child support order 

of $613 subtracted from the net monthly income of $1,729 

used by the court left Issak with $1,116, which kept Issak 

above $973 (the poverty guideline basic subsistence level for 

one person in 2014). However, as noted at the outset of this 
- 93 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

opinion, § 4-218 sets forth only the poverty guideline for one 

person—it does not set forth the basic subsistence levels for 

households consisting of more than one person. Rather, it 

appears to direct us to the Federal Register for the poverty 

guideline figures for households in excess of one person. In 

the more common divorce or paternity situation, a noncustodial parent’s household may often consist of just one person; 

however, as obvious in this case, a noncustodial parent’s 

household may consist of a spouse and other dependent children. In such cases, taking the poverty guideline figure that 

has been calculated for one person’s basic subsistence and 

applying that same figure to a much larger family results in 

an inequitable outcome.

This court is mindful that a trial court is faced with a 

very difficult task when trying to calculate a fair amount of 

child support in this type of multifamily situation. In Henke 

v. Guerrero, 13 Neb. App. 337, 692 N.W.2d 762 (2005), this 

court reviewed a paternity action involving a minor child born 

to a mother and father not married to each other, but each married to other people with whom they also had children. We 

noted the complex multifamily situation and concluded that 

the child support and retroactive support ordered in that case 

resulted in a disproportionate amount of the father’s net income 

going to the child at issue and that our concern must be for 

fairness for all the children. We also recognized that a perfectly 

fair economic result cannot be expected. Id.

In Henke, supra, the father was ordered to pay $252 per 

month retroactive to the first day of the month following the 

child’s birth. Since the order was entered 43 months after 

the child’s birth, this resulted in an immediate arrearage of 

$10,836, excluding interest. The father was ordered to pay 

$50 per month (in addition to current support of $252 per 

month) to address the arrearage. In considering the father’s 

net income of $1,048.97 and the basic subsistence limitation 

of $748 for one person at that time, this court noted that the 

$252 child support order and the monthly $50 retroactive 

payment would leave the father with a monthly income $1.03 
- 94 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

below the basic subsistence limitation. This court stated that 

the father must meet his current obligations for a family of 

five and concluded that the circumstances and equities—the 

father’s lack of ability to pay and the needs of his other children—required a deviation as to the retroactive support. This 

court modified the retroactive support from $252 per month 

to $50 per month, thereby reducing the arrearages to a total 

of $2,150.

We note that this court in Henke, supra, did not consider 

the poverty guidelines for a family of five when reviewing 

the father’s support obligation, and instead, it appeared to 

rely solely on the basic subsistence limitation for one person. 

However, in Henke, this court was focused on the application 

of the poverty guidelines with respect to the retroactive support only, since that was the error assigned on cross-appeal 

by the father. It was not argued that the poverty guidelines 

should be applied for a family of 5 when determining child 

support, as is being argued in the present case for Issak’s family of 10.

[8-10] In general, child support payments should be set 

according to the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines, which are 

applied as a rebuttable presumption. See Pearson v. Pearson, 

285 Neb. 686, 828 N.W.2d 760 (2013). All orders for child 

support obligations shall be established in accordance with the 

provisions of the guidelines unless the court finds that one or 

both parties have produced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the guidelines should be applied. Id. See, also, 

Neb. Ct. R. § 4-203 (rev. 2011). The trial court may deviate 

from the guidelines whenever the application of the guidelines in an individual case would be unjust or inappropriate. 

Pearson, supra.

[11-13] The main principle behind the Nebraska Child 

Support Guidelines is to recognize the equal duty of both 

parents to contribute to the support of their children in proportion to their respective net incomes. See Neb. Ct. R. § 4-201. 

However, absent a clearly articulated justification, any deviation from the guidelines is an abuse of discretion. Gress v. 
- 95 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N.W.2d 67 (2007). If the district 

court fails to indicate that a deviation from § 4-218 (basic subsistence) is warranted, it abuses its discretion if its child support order drives the obligor’s income below the poverty line 

set forth in § 4-218. See id.

[14-19] The instant case involves numerous minor children 

from various different relationships: Issak and his wife have 

a total of eight minor children together; while still married 

to his wife, Issak had two children with Lasu; and Lasu has 

six children from a previous marriage, two of whom reside 

with her. Both Lasu and the Issaks receive governmental 

assistance. There is no precise mathematical formula for calculating child support when subsequent children are involved. 

See Brooks v. Brooks, 261 Neb. 289, 622 N.W.2d 670 (2001). 

Such calculation is left to the discretion of the court as long 

as the court considered the obligations to both families and 

the income of the other parent of the subsequent children. See 

id. Subsequent familial relationships vary widely from case to 

case. Id. When a deviation from the guidelines is appropriate, 

the trial court should consider both parents’ support obligations to all children involved in the relationships. Brooks, 

supra. In considering the obligation to those subsequent children, the trial court should take into consideration the income 

of the other parent of these children as well as any other equitable considerations. Id. The specific formula for making such 

calculations is left to the discretion of the trial court, as long 

as the basic principle that both families are treated as fairly 

as possible is adhered to. Id. In other words, a trial court has 

discretion to choose if and how to calculate the deviation, but 

must do so in a manner that does not benefit one family at the 

expense of the other. See Emery v. Moffett, 269 Neb. 867, 697 

N.W.2d 249 (2005).

The district court in the instant case was faced with somewhat unusual and complicated familial relationships, and it 

chose to adopt Lasu’s proposed child support calculations 

to account for Issak’s eight minor children who he supports 

with his wife. The court’s worksheet attached to the decree 
- 96 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

purported to provide Issak with a $318 credit as the hypothetical child support he would owe to his wife for six of their 

eight children if they shared joint physical custody, bringing 

his net monthly income to $1,729.17. This resulted in Issak 

owing $613 per month in child support for Samuel and Daniel. 

However, giving Issak a credit of only $318 to support the 

eight children in his current household while paying $613 to 

support the two in Lasu’s household is on its face not equitable. A significant flaw in Lasu’s proposed calculation is the 

premise underlying the joint physical custody calculator she 

used which provides for a lower monthly child support obligation but must also include contributions for reasonable and 

necessary direct expenses such as clothing and extracurricular 

costs associated with the children. See Neb. Ct. R. § 4-212 

(rev. 2011). These additional contributions were not considered 

in Lasu’s calculation. Based upon Lasu’s proposed calculation, 

after subtracting the $613 child support obligation from Issak’s 

net income, his remaining income would be $1,116.17 per 

month, which on its face is above the basic subsistence level 

of $973 for one person in 2014. See § 4-218.

[20] However, Issak’s central argument on appeal is that the 

district court’s calculations essentially treated him as a single 

person, when in reality he is the head of a 10-person household 

whose total household income is below the poverty guidelines updated annually in the Federal Register. Issak relies on 

§ 4-218, which provided:

A parent’s support, child care, and health care obligation shall not reduce his or her net income below the 

minimum of $973 net monthly for one person, or the poverty guidelines updated annually in the Federal Register 

by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 9902(2), except minimum 

support may be ordered as defined in § 4-209.

(Emphasis supplied.) Our courts have never explicitly addressed 

the latter part of § 4-218 referencing the poverty guidelines in 

the Federal Register.
- 97 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

[21,22] It is clear that under § 4-218, the minimum of 

“$973 net monthly for one person” is derived from the Federal 

Register poverty guidelines. The 2014 Federal Register provided that the poverty guideline for a household of one was 

$11,670 in annual income, which equals $973 per month. 

However, as Issak points out, he is not part of a one-person 

household; rather, he is married and supporting eight other 

minor children with his wife. Section 4-218 provides that a 

parent’s support, childcare, and health care obligation shall 

not reduce his or her net income below $973 net monthly 

“for one person.” By logical extension, when dealing with 

a situation where a parent’s household is not a one-person 

household, as in the instant case, the poverty guidelines as 

updated annually in the Federal Register should be used as 

the resource for determining the basic subsistence level for 

that household.

[23-26] Issak, his wife, and their 8 children constitute 

a household of 10. According to the 2014 poverty guidelines set forth in the Federal Register, the poverty guideline 

for a household of 10 was $48,210 in annual income, or 

$4,018 per month. In looking at the child support worksheet 

attached to the district court’s order, Issak’s net monthly 

income at the time of trial was $2,047.17 and his wife’s net 

monthly income was $1,280.77, after providing them with 

the applicable deductions set forth in § 4-205. See, also, 

Molczyk v. Molczyk, 285 Neb. 96, 825 N.W.2d 435 (2013) 

(to determine obligor’s net income for calculating support 

obligations, court subtracts these annualized deductions from 

obligor’s gross income: taxes, FICA, allowable retirement 

contributions, previous court-ordered child support to other 

children, and allowable voluntary support payments to other 

children; to determine if obligor’s income exceeds minimum 

subsistence level, court deducts obligor’s support obligations 

that are specified in guidelines from obligor’s net income). 

The combined monthly net income available to the Issaks’ 

household of 10 in 2014 was $3,328, roughly $690 below 
- 98 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

the poverty guidelines of $4,018 per month as set forth in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, the Issaks’ combined household 

income fell below poverty guidelines even before any award 

of child support was entered. Because Issak’s income, even 

when combined with his wife’s income, was below the poverty 

guidelines for a household of 10 (as updated annually in the 

Federal Register), see § 4-218, the district court should have 

ordered minimum support pursuant to § 4-209 or otherwise set 

forth specific reasons for deviating from the basic subsistence 

requirement. Section 4-209 provides that in very low income 

cases, “a minimum support of $50, or 10 percent of the obligor’s net income, whichever is greater, per month be set.” Ten 

percent of Issak’s net income would be $205 in child support 

for Samuel and Daniel.

[27] Similar to our earlier discussion of Henke v. Guerrero, 

13 Neb. App. 337, 692 N.W.2d 762 (2005), we note again 

here that when determining child support in a complex multifamily situation, trial courts should be careful not to order 

a disproportionate amount of a child support obligor’s net 

income to go to the children at issue, and that the goal must 

be for fairness for all the children for whom a parent must 

provide support. One way that might be accomplished in this 

case, for example, is to take only Issak’s monthly net income 

of $2,047 into consideration when thinking about how much 

of that net income would be needed to support 10 children if 

his was the only source of income. Looking at a total monthly 

net income of $2,000 in the child support guidelines income 

shares table, we can see that $1,025 in monthly child support 

would be allocated to provide for six children. The income 

shares table stops at six children, and while the guidelines tell 

us how to calculate child support for income that exceeds the 

levels provided for in the table, the guidelines do not tell us 

how to calculate child support when a parent is responsible 

for supporting more than six children, as in the case before 

us. Pursuant to the table, a monthly net income of $2,000 calls 

for child support in the following amounts: $507 (one child), 
- 99 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

$723 (two children), $830 (three children), $895 (four children), $960 (five children), and $1,025 (six children). At this 

income level, once reaching three children, we can see that 

the increments increase by $65 for each additional child. If 

we extrapolate that out to 10 children (8 in current household, 

2 in Lasu’s), the guidelines would suggest that $1,285 per 

month would be recommended to support those 10 children, 

or $128.50 per child. Ordering minimum support in this case 

pursuant to § 4-209 results in Issak owing $205 per month 

for the two children in Lasu’s household, or $102.50 per 

child (this per child figure is supplied only for the purpose of 

showing comparable resources for each of Issak’s 10 children 

and is not to be construed to mean that Issak’s child support 

would reduce to $102.50 if only one of his children with Lasu 

remained eligible for child support). The minimum support 

based upon 10 percent of Issak’s net income results in a much 

more fair allocation of Issak’s net resources to all of Issak’s 

10 children. If we use our calculation of $1,285 per month in 

child support for 10 children, the district court’s child support 

order of $613 per month for 2 children would result in almost 

half of the child support resources going to just 2 children, 

with the other half of the resources being shared by 8 children. 

As stated previously, a trial court has discretion to choose if 

and how to calculate a deviation where multiple families are 

involved, but must do so in a manner that does not benefit one 

family at the expense of the other. See Emery v. Moffett, 269 

Neb. 867, 697 N.W.2d 249 (2005).

We therefore reverse the portion of the trial court’s order 

setting the amount of child support to be paid by Issak, and 

consistent with our analysis above, we remand the cause to the 

district court with directions to enter an order finding Issak’s 

child support obligation to be $205 per month for Samuel and 

Daniel effective May 1, 2014. Because of the many variables 

already discussed that can influence child support calculations in a multifamily case like this, neither the district court 

nor this court can calculate at this time what Issak would 
- 100 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

LASU v. ISSAK

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 83

owe in child support payable to Lasu when there is just one 

remaining minor child owed support. The parties will have to 

consider the familial circumstances, financial resources, and 

poverty guidelines, if applicable, relevant at that time and 

seek modification accordingly if warranted.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that Issak’s household income was below the 

federal poverty guidelines for a household of 10 and that thus, 

he should have been ordered to pay only minimum support. We 

therefore reverse the district court’s order of child support and 

remand the cause to the district court with directions to enter 

an order finding Issak’s child support obligation to be $205 per 

month for Samuel and Daniel effective May 1, 2014.

Reversed and remanded with dire