Mace v. Mace, A-16-398

Marriage dissolved in 2013; Stacie ordered to pay $50/month child support; last payment Feb. 2, 2015. Payment history showed $707.70 arrears as of Feb. 8, 2016 (later $759.18).
State filed an affidavit and order to show cause for contempt for failure to pay; contempt hearing held Feb. 11, 2016 after continuances.
Stacie testified she suffered significant mental-health problems, had intermittent employment, lived with parents, received in-kind compensation (cigarettes) and occasional small farm work income (~$100/month), and owned a vehicle ($1,000) and $1,000 in jewelry.
Psychological report diagnosed recurrent major depressive disorder and opined she was unlikely to sustain gainful employment; Stacie applied for disability benefits and claimed she would pay support if she received benefits.
District court found statutory prima facie delinquency established a rebuttable presumption of contempt; court found Stacie willfully and intentionally in contempt because she received cigarettes instead of cash, had assets she did not liquidate, and made no payments; sentenced to 5 days jail (deferred) with a purge plan of $75/month ($50 current + $25 toward arrears).
On appeal, Stacie argued inability to pay due to mental incapacity and that the purge amount was beyond her present ability; the court affirmed, finding no plain error and that Stacie failed to prove inability to pay or that she exhausted assets.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mace)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether rebuttable presumption of contempt was rebutted by mental-health incapacity	Stacie argued mental illness made her unable to hold steady work and thus could not willfully disobey support order	State argued she worked for parents, received in-kind compensation, had assets, and made no effort to pay	Court held presumption not rebutted; evidence showed ability to earn and assets not exhausted, so contempt was willful
Whether purge amount and deferred jail sentence were civilly permissible (ability to pay)	Stacie argued she lacked present ability to make purge payments, so the sanction was effectively criminal	State argued purge amount was reasonable given reported income and assets; Stacie failed to prove inability to pay	Court held purge plan ($75/mo) was within Stacie’s present ability; she failed to meet burden to show inability to pay; sanction remained civil
Whether appellant’s briefing defects required relief/plain error review	Stacie’s brief omitted formal assignments of error	State relied on record and merits	Court reviewed for plain error and found none; affirmed contempt and purge order

Hossaini v. Vaelizadeh, 283 Neb. 369, 808 N.W.2d 867 (2012) (civil contempt requires willful disobedience proven by clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Reuter, 216 Neb. 325, 343 N.W.2d 907 (1984) (child support is a fundamental obligation)
Sickler v. Sickler, 293 Neb. 521, 878 N.W.2d 549 (2016) (purge amount must be within contemnor’s present ability; inability to pay is defense to incarceration and burden rests on contemnor)
In re Interest of Samantha L. & Jasmine L., 286 Neb. 778, 839 N.W.2d 265 (2013) (appellate briefing requirements and plain-error review)