Nebraska: Appeals Court Holds that Paternal father Casey S. holds full custody of their minor child instead of maternal mother Tarah L. and she is ordered to pay child support.. BY: May X-R.

Link for opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/sites/supremecourt.ne.gov/files/coa/opinions/memorandum/a12-265.pdf

Title: Nebraska: Appeals Court Holds that Paternal father Casey S. holds full custody of their minor child instead of maternal mother Tarah L. and she is ordered to pay child support.

The Nebraska Court of Appeals held in Casey S. v. Tarah L. Case No. A-12-265 (NE Ct. App., Dec. 31, 2012) that Casey S. is granted full custody of their minor child, Sawyer L., and ordering Tarah L. to pay child support.

Appellant Tarah L. argues on appeal that the court abused its discretion in awarding Casey full custody, limiting her regular parenting time, and refusing to decrease her child support obligations despite the financial burden of exercising her visitation rights.

In 2007 Casey and Tarah informally arranged for alternating custody of Sawyer.  In 2008 Tarah moved in with Casey in Kearney, Nebraska along with Sawyer.  In 2009, Tarah left Kearney with Sawyer.  In July 2009 Tarah dropped Sawyer off with Casey in exchange for $700.00.  It was then that Casey filed a petition for paternity and full custody of Sawyer. 

In December 2009, the court held a hearing on temporary custody and awarded Casey temporary full custody subject to Tarah’s parenting time of 1 week per month.  The court also ordered child support.  It required Tarah to pay $422 each month in basic support for Sawyer.

In July 2010, the court granted Casey’s motion to have the parties submit to a psychological and custodial evaluation conducted by Dr. John Meidlinger. 

The court held a custody hearing in February 2012. Several witnesses testified at the hearing, including Dr. Meidlinger, the expert who performed a psychological and custodial evaluation. Dr. Meidlinger recommended awarding custody to Casey.  He opined that Sawyer needed a patient parent who would administer nonphysical discipline. He liked the way Sawyer calmly interacted with Casey and thought Casey had done a good job implementing successful disciplinary procedures. Dr. Meidlinger was less confident in Tarah’s abilities to parent Sawyer, because she had been subject to “extreme domestic violence” and because he received reports that she was emotionally unstable and had difficulty controlling her anger.

The court found that there were “pluses and minuses” to awarding either parent custody.

The court noted that both parties seemed “aware of Sawyer’s limitations” and “actively concerned in his physical, intellectual, and behavioral development.” The court opined that

Sawyer was improving in Casey’s custody, but it noted that programming to help him continue

to improve would be available in Missouri as well.

Washington: Appeals Court Hold that Student was not emancipated before 21 years of age. BY: Nicole I.

Link for opinion: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/68357-8.unp.doc.pdf

Title: Washington: Appeals Court Hold that Student was not emancipated before 21 years of age

The Washington Court of Appeals held in McMinn v. McMinn (unpublished opinion) that the commissioner erred in determining whether the student was emancipated before he turned 21

On February 12, 1997, the Indiana court entered a decree of dissolution of the marriage of Lori and Daniel McMinn.  Daniel was ordered to pay child support until the Student was emancipated or turned twenty-one.

Student inherited a trust in the amount of $112,000, 200 shares of Pacific Power and Light, and approximately $33,000 when his great aunt passed away. When his grandmother passed away, the student inherited another $25,000. The terms of the trust stated that it was for “health, education and support needs.”

In September 2008, student went off to college and Daniel stopped paying his child support to Lori. Lori insisted that the student was not emancipated until he was 21 and that Daniel owes the child support from 2008 to November 18, 2010.

On January 26, 2012, the superior court commissioner ruled in favor of Daniel, and Lori appealed.

The appeals court held that the superior court commissioner erred in failing to determine whether the student was emancipated after he left home to go to college in September 2008.  The appeals court reverses and remands to determine whether Aaron was emancipated. If Aaron was not emancipated before he turned 21, the commissioner shall then determine the amount, if any, of past due child support.