Court Opinion

ID: 9742015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:05:23.866583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:27.797893
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion herein. The issue as I see it is whether the mongoloid son of the deceased workman was totally or partially dependent upon his father. While it is true that the child was not living with his father at the time of the father’s death, the undisputed testimony of the mother is that she needed $50 per month for the support of this child. This was the amount allowed in the divorce decree and was the amount provided in the uniform reciprocal enforcement of support action filed in this state. In my judgment, he was totally dependent upon his father.
On the record before us, the workman was paying the total amount needed to support the child at the time of the workman’s, death. The record indicates the child’s dependency on the workman was total at the time of the death of the workman.
This was a Kansas and not a Nebraska divorce. The Kansas court found $50 was necessary for the support of the child. The mother testified the amount was adequate. To enforce it, the mother filed a uniform reciprocal enforcement of support action in this state. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should not ignore the mother’s testimony and take judicial notice that it must have cost more than $50 a month to support the child. We should find on her testimony $50 is the amount which was required for his support at the time of the father’s death.
On the record I would find the mongoloid child totally dependent upon his father, the workman, at the time of the father’s death, and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
McCown, J., joins in this dissent.