Stacy M. v. Jason M.
290 Neb. 141
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Jason M. and Stacy M. divorced by decree (March 2011) that ordered Jason to pay child support for three children; two younger children remain minors.
- Jason later learned via genetic testing (2013) he is not the biological father of the youngest child.
- Jason filed an equity action seeking suspension of child support for the youngest child while preserving the parental relationship (he refused to seek statutory disestablishment under § 43-1412.01).
- Stacy (pro se) said she did not know the biological father, that Jason is the only father the child knows, and that child support funded the child’s needs; she opposed termination or suspension.
- The district court appointed a guardian ad litem, held hearings, and denied suspension, reasoning Jason had legal remedies under § 43-1412.01 which he did not pursue and that a dissolution decree ordering support is a legal determination of paternity.
- Jason appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of equitable relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may equitably suspend child support without disestablishing paternity | Jason: equity should allow suspension of child support while retaining parental status | State/Stacy: dissolution decree and statute tie support to legal paternity; statutory remedy exists for disestablishment | Court: No; equitable suspension without statutory disestablishment not permitted |
| Whether dissolution decree ordering support is a final determination of paternity | Jason: decree can be separated (support vs legal paternity) | Court/Stacy: decree ordering support implicitly determines paternity; res judicata applies | Court: Decree is legal determination of paternity; res judicata applies (but statute modifies this) |
| Whether § 43-1412.01 authorizes suspension of support without setting aside paternity | Jason: statutory language distinguishes “obligation to pay child support” from “legal determination of paternity” allowing suspension alone | Court: statute treats child support obligation as a form of legal determination; relief available only when paternity is set aside | Court: § 43-1412.01 permits setting aside support only when paternity is disestablished; it does not authorize suspension without disestablishment |
| Whether court should exercise equitable power to relieve support obligation | Jason: equity justified because he is not biological father and financial burden is unfair | Court: parental rights and children’s interests (including support) outweigh equity; must use statutory route | Court: Denied equitable relief; directed to statutory disestablishment if he wishes to eliminate obligation |
Key Cases Cited
- Floral Lawns Memorial Gardens Assn. v. Becker, 284 Neb. 532 (establishing appellate standard for de novo review in equity)
- Newman v. Liebig, 282 Neb. 609 (appellate standards and review)
- State on behalf of B.M. v. Brian F., 288 Neb. 106 (distinction between biological and legal father)
- Alisha C. v. Jeremy C., 283 Neb. 340 (marital presumption of paternity; § 43-1412.01 discussion)
- Helter v. Williamson, 239 Neb. 741 (paternity presumption and rebuttal standard)
- DeVaux v. DeVaux, 245 Neb. 611 (dissolution decree as determination of paternity; res judicata)
- Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 241 Neb. 43 (support obligation tied to legal paternity)
- In re Interest of Meridian H., 281 Neb. 465 (parental due process and parent-child relationship)
- Caniglia v. Caniglia, 285 Neb. 930 (child support as fundamental parental duty)
- Henderson v. Henderson, 264 Neb. 916 (parental duty to support after divorce)