Opinion ID: 2216221
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: amount of retroactive child support

Text: Lastly, Walling asserts the district court erred in using the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines in setting the amount of retroactive child support and in determining that $50 per month was the appropriate amount for the first 10-year period of the minor's life, for which period there was no evidence of his parents' income. We have held that child support in a paternity action is to be determined in the same manner as in cases of children born in lawful wedlock. Oglesby, supra ; State on Behalf of Matchett v. Dunkle, 244 Neb. 639, 508 N.W.2d 580 (1993). In Schmitt v. Schmitt, 239 Neb. 632, 477 N.W.2d 563 (1991), we determined that the adoption of the child support guidelines effective October 1, 1987, constituted a material change of circumstances sufficient to justify consideration of a petition for the modification of the amount of child support ordered prior to that date. Thus, it is entirely appropriate to use the after-adopted guidelines in determining the amount of retroactive support to award a child born out of wedlock. Indeed, we have previously held that the guidelines are presumptively applicable in the setting of child support in a paternity action. Oglesby, supra (specific circumstances overcome presumption of applicability). See, also, Dunkle, supra (remanded in order that trial court might comply with child support statutes and guidelines with respect to retroactive child support). Paragraph I of the guidelines recommends that even in very low income cases, a minimum support of $50 per month be set. It is true that the stated purpose of such minimum support is to help to maintain information on [the] obligor ... and ... encourage such person to understand the necessity of supporting his children and that such reasoning may not apply in this instance. Nonetheless, the fact remains that in the absence of evidence establishing that $50 per month is excessive, the amount is presumptively correct. There being no evidence that the $50 per month ordered is excessive, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion.