Opinion ID: 1229752
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: child-care expenses

Text: The district court also found that Mary Laux is expending as child care expenses for the minor child born of this marriage the sum of $32 per month, which sum represents child care expenses incurred by the petitioner to enable her to visit her doctor for medical examinations and treatments. However, as a result of our de novo review of the record, we find that the child-care expenses questioned in this appeal were in fact incurred for Mary Laux's minor daughter born of the Laux marriage subsequent to the Pattrin divorce. On direct examination during the modification hearing, Mary Laux testified: Q. And have you since remarried? A. Yes. Q. And do you have children as a result of your new marriage? A. Yes, I have one. Q. And how old is she? A. She is six. Q. Is she in your custody? A. Yes. .... Q. About how often would you have a doctor's appointment? A. Usually twice a week. Q. And since you have a six-year-old daughter, do you have to have a sitter for that? A. Yes, I do. Q. And what does the sitter cost you per hour? A. Usually around $2 an hour. .... Q.... [I]n regard to child care, does the $32 a month represent the child care that you will have to spend in order to make your physicians' appointments? A. Yes. Thus, evidence at the modification hearing clearly and indisputably established that Stephen Pattrin is not the father of Mary Laux's 6-year-old daughter. Under Nebraska law, only parents may be ordered to pay child support or expenses for child care pursuant to a decree of marital dissolution. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-364(4) (Reissue 1988): [C]hild support [is] to be paid by a parent.... See, also, Nebraska Child Support Guidelines, paragraph A: The main principle behind these 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. On the basis of the record presented, Stephen Pattrin has no legal responsibility to pay child support or child-care expenses for Mary Laux's daughter because he is not a parent of the child. Hence, the district court abused its discretion in requiring that Stephen Pattrin pay child-care expenses concerning Mary Laux's daughter. Therefore, we modify the judgment of the district court by deleting from the district court's order any requirement that Stephen Pattrin pay $32 per month for child-care expenses of Mary Laux's daughter. Although we have considered the matter of an attorney fee regarding counsels' representation in this court, we decline to order any attorney fee concerning the proceedings in this court. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. CAPORALE, J., not participating in the decision.