Opinion ID: 1742300
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: visitation and child support

Text: Appellant's second and third assigned errors revolve around the trial court's determinations regarding visitation of the minor child and child support. As stated earlier, child custody determinations, and visitation determinations, are matters initially entrusted to the discretion of the trial judge, and although reviewed de novo on the record, the trial court's determination will normally be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. Palmer v. Palmer, 249 Neb. 814, 545 N.W.2d 751 (1996). We find no abuse of discretion in reviewing the decision of the trial court regarding appellant's visitation. There was ample evidence that appellant did very little in the way of caring for the minor child prior to the dissolution of his marriage. Furthermore, despite the convenience offered by appellant's schedule, evidence in the record clearly questions appellant's sobriety. Appellee testified that on four occasions when appellant was to have the minor child for visitation, appellee was forced to take the minor child to a day-care provider due to appellant's inebriation. Further-more, it was brought out on cross-examination that appellant had recently been arrested for driving while under the influence. Based upon these facts and the fact that the minor child had become accustomed to her visitation schedule during the temporary separation, the decision of the trial court is neither untenable nor improper and does not amount to an abuse of discretion. As we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's visitation schedule, appellant's second assigned error is without merit. Appellant's third assigned error revolves around the amount of child support awarded to appellee. Appellant argues that the only evidence as to his income was his military pension, and thus the court improperly imputed income to him from his operation of the bar. However, there was ample evidence that appellant worked a significant number of hours at the bar and restaurant he owned and operated. As stated above, the proper amount of child support is determined not necessarily by a parent's earnings, but by a parent's earning capacity. Smith-Helstrom v. Yonker, 249 Neb. 449, 544 N.W.2d 93 (1996). We conclude that the trial court did not err in determining the amount of child support from appellant's earning capacity, rather than his earnings. Appellant is an able-bodied, 51-year-old man who has demonstrated that he is able to work.