Court Opinion

ID: 9694997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:03:31.622157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:07.535578
License: Public Domain

Merritt, D.J.,
concurring.
I concur with the result reached by the majority; however, I am troubled by the manner in which it has attempted to distinguish Czaplewski v. Czaplewski, 240 Neb. 629, 483 N.W.2d 751 (1992).
It is true that in Czaplewski, the trial court elected to consider evidence of the father’s duty to support a child from a subsequent marriage, while, in this case, the trial court elected not to consider evidence of the father’s duty to support a child from a subsequent marriage. The respective trial courts, for whatever reason(s), approached the issue of duty to support children of a subsequent marriage differently. The majority, however, has not addressed the following language found in Czaplewski. “In keeping with the spirit of the guidelines, the trial court was correct in factoring into the child support calculations the father’s offspring of his subsequent marriage. Therefore, the calculations are correct and shall stand.” Id. at 631, 483 N.W.2d at 752.
If it was not an abuse of discretion to correctly follow the “spirit of the guidelines” in Czaplewski, then, conversely, it must be an abuse of discretion not to correctly follow that spirit in this case. In its holding today, the majority says this is not so. Although the facts of Czaplewski and the instant case may be readily distinguishable, the majority’s decision in this case is *21inconsistent with its holding in Czaplewski. Notwithstanding the majority’s assertion, Czaplewski does not reflect that evidence was offered at trial which tended to show that an additional increase in the amount of child support would create a hardship for the father’s new family, nor does Czaplewski discuss the amount of the father’s child support obligation for the children of his prior marriage vis-a-vis the amount he provided for the child of his subsequent marriage.
It seems to me that the only way to eliminate this inconsistency is to disapprove the preceding language from Czaplewski and determine that, in this case, as in Czaplewski, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.