Lasu v. Issak
868 N.W.2d 79
Neb. Ct. App.2015Background
- Hussein Issak is married with eight children (household of 10 including his wife) and, while married, fathered two children (Samuel and Daniel) with Mirab Lasu.
- Lasu sued for paternity, custody, and support; parties stipulated paternity and Lasu was awarded sole physical custody; the district court ordered Issak to pay $613/month for both children effective May 1, 2014.
- At trial the parties stipulated to incomes: Issak’s and his wife’s monthly incomes were used in support calculations; Issak’s net monthly income (after certain credits) was $2,047.17 and his wife’s net was $1,280.77.
- Issak argued the district court failed to apply Neb. Ct. R. § 4-218’s reference to the Federal Register poverty guidelines for multi-person households, which meant his combined household income fell below the poverty guideline for a household of 10.
- The district court denied Issak’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal; Issak paid the docket fee instead of appealing that denial.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals held the district court should have applied the Federal Register poverty guideline for a 10-person household, reversed the child support amount, and remanded with directions to set support at $205/month (10% of Issak’s net) effective May 1, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Lasu's Argument | Issak's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of in forma pauperis on appeal | Objection to IFP not dispositive; appellant paid docket fee | District court erred in denying IFP | Issak waived challenge by paying docket fee instead of appealing denial; issue not preserved |
| Proper child support calculation under Neb. Ct. R. § 4-218 | Court properly applied guidelines and accounted for other children via credit and deviation | § 4-218’s reference to the Federal Register requires using poverty guideline for a 10-person household; combined income below that level so only minimum support required | Reversed and remanded: court must apply the Federal Register poverty guideline for household size; because combined household income was below the 10-person poverty guideline, minimum support under § 4-209 should have been ordered; directed support = $205/month for the two children effective May 1, 2014 |
Key Cases Cited
- Prochaska v. Prochaska, 6 Neb. App. 302 (Neb. Ct. App.) (use of child-support deviations and considerations when multiple families involved)
- Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686 (Neb. 2007) (standard of review and abuse-of-discretion rules for domestic matters)
- Pearson v. Pearson, 285 Neb. 686 (Neb. 2012) (child support guidelines as a rebuttable presumption)
- Molczyk v. Molczyk, 285 Neb. 96 (Neb. 2013) (how to calculate obligor’s net income under guidelines)
- Brooks v. Brooks, 261 Neb. 289 (Neb. 2001) (trial court discretion in multi-family child-support calculations)
- Henke v. Guerrero, 13 Neb. App. 337 (Neb. Ct. App.) (fairness concerns when orders allocate disproportionate share of obligor income)
- Emery v. Moffett, 269 Neb. 867 (Neb. 2005) (trial court must not benefit one family at expense of another when deviating)