State on behalf of B.M. v. Brian F., 846 N.W.2d 257

Brian F. signed a notarized Acknowledgement of Paternity in 1995 and a paternity decree found him to be the legal father, ordering child support.
The 2009 district court order increased Brian’s child support to $369 per month, which Brian paid under protest.
In 2011–2012, Brian sought modification or termination of child support; genetic testing in 2012 excluded him as the biological father.
The referee recommended terminating support and setting aside the finding of paternity, based on genetic testing results, and the district court adopted this approach in October 2012.
The State appealed, arguing the district court erred in voiding the paternity determination and terminating support without proper authority or procedures.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held the district court erred by expanding the modification action into a disestablishment proceeding and by terminating support based solely on nonpaternity findings; the matter was remanded for modification of support consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court err by voiding paternity and terminating support?	State contends the court exceeded its scope and voided paternity.	Brian argues modification/disestablishment procedures apply; paternity may be challenged.	Yes; court erred in voiding paternity and terminating support.
Was the action improperly expanded from support modification to disestablishment of paternity?	State says pleadings clearly raised disestablishment via genetic testing.	Brian maintains pleadings were for modification, not disestablishment.	Yes; improper expansion; limit to modification of child support.
Should genetic testing alone constitute a material change in circumstances for modification of support?	State argues genetic testing undermines paternity and supports modification.	Brian argues testing does not, by itself, justify modification; need statutory framework.	No; genetic results alone do not warrant modification without proper statutory remedy and petition.
What is the proper statutory framework for challenging paternity or disestablishment in this pre-2008 context?	State asserts rescission/disestablishment remedies exist under 43-1409/43-1412.01.	Brian did not timely invoke those remedies; pre-1997 version is evidentiary, not a remedy.	The district court erred; post-1997 disestablishment provisions do not retroactively apply to this case; the action remained modification.

Hill, State on behalf of L.L.B. v. Hill, 268 Neb. 355 (2004) (adjudicated father’s lack of diligence barred vacation of arrearages)
Cross v. Perreten, 257 Neb. 776 (1999) (paternity proceedings strictly construed; remedies limited to statutes)
Mahmood v. Mahmud, 279 Neb. 390 (2010) (liberal pleading allows notice-friendly claims; claims must give fair notice)
DeVaux v. DeVaux, 245 Neb. 611 (1994) (relates to limitations on vacating paternity judgments and equitable relief)
Paltani v. Creel, 169 Neb. 591 (1960) (early authority on vacating judgments and equitable relief)
Cesar C. v. Alicia L., 281 Neb. 979 (2011) (discusses evidentiary status of acknowledgments and later reliefs)
In re J.I.Z., 170 S.W.3d 881 (Tex. App. 2005) (DNA results alone do not justify modification without overriding judgment)