Nevada Child Support Legal Questions

A great question.  The short version is "no," but the longer answer is "possibly, sort of."  A new spouse's income is not part of the guideline, but can be considered for deviation purposes.  Consider this case summary: ... Rodgers v. Rodgers, 110 Nev. 1370, 887 P.2d 269 (1994) In 1991 divorce, Mother got custody and Father paid $250.00 per month child support.  In a stipulation six months later, custody was transferred to Father; Mother was to pay $125.00 per month child support.  Mother moved to California and remarried; Father moved to increase child support. A Domestic Relations Referee recommended imputing half of the Mother's new spouse's net income to the Mother, and basing support thereon.  Mother objected; district court judge reversed Referee's findings and recommendation without explanation.  Father appealed. The Supreme Court rejected the Father's contention that NRS 125B.070 grants district courts the discretion to consider a new spouse's income in setting child support, but held that "under appropriate circumstances, a noncustodial parent's community property interest may be taken into account pursuant to NRS 125B.080." Specifically, the definition of "gross monthly income" in NRS 125B.070(1)(a) includes "income from any source" for a wage-earner, or the gross income from any source of a self-employed person." The Court reaffirmed its holding that "gross monthly income" does not include a parent's community property interest in a new spouse's income. However, the Court went on to note that under NRS 125B.080, the lower courts can, upon making appropriate findings of fact, deviate from the statutory schedule, and noted that NRS 125B.080(9)(1) lists "the relative income of both parents" as a factor.  Greater weight, then, must be given to the standard of living and circumstances of each parent, their earning capacities, and the `relative financial means of parents' than to any of the other factors."  From dicta in Barbagallo, Lewis, and Herz v. Gabler-Herz, 107 Nev. 117, 808 P.2d 1 (1991), the Court inferred that under the community property scheme, a spouse has a present, vested one-half interest in the other spouse's earnings under NRS 123.130, 123.220, and 123.225, and under California Family Code sects. 751, 760. While spousal income is not part of gross income, the remarried parent's imputed community property right to share in income does count for comparing "relative income" of the two parents. Here, the district court had discretion to consider such income, but erred in failing to make specific findings, so the case was reversed and remanded for such findings. ... As you can see, these tend to be pretty fact-specific inquiries.  For background, see the information posted at http://willicklawgroup.com/child-support/.  For particularized attention, consider scheduling a consultation with a family law specialist.  ... Read More

The State Welfare office may indeed not be doing its job right, but they will not care about that as it relates to chasing you (and the child's father) to recoup money they have expended for welfare relating to that child (if yoiu report Welfare fraud, it might get prospectively corrected).  You can request a hearing, and see if you can get the payments reduced, but from the information you supplied, it does not seem readily apparent how you might prevent an obligation from being owed, or collected, short of a full legal termination of parental rights -- and even that will only operate prospectively, not as to any existing debts.... Read More

Well, . . . maybe.  There is a current statute, based on a 100-year old statute, by which child support can be modified upward to include compensation for the mother's "pregnancy and confinement."  A recent article in the Nevada Family Law Report (the journal in Nevada for divorce lawyers) raised the question of whether this statute is Constitutional in the modern world -- but either way, it is on the books.  Normally, yes, the D.A. chases the dad for welfare benefits paid to or on behalf of the mom.  I have not heard of this including medical expenses (it probably will be for contribution to the welfare expenditures, irrepsective of what caused them.  It might be less hassle for you to keep her out of the welfare system and support her directly.  For some background, see http://willicklawgroup.com/child-support/.... Read More

It means that the judge found that you could have paid an obligation for child support that the court found legitimately due and owing, and chose not to, and so, in addition to owing the money involved (plus interest and a child support penalty) you should be sent to jail for ten days for defying the order.  See generally http://willicklawgroup.com/child-support/ It may be possible to purge the contempt by paying what is owed and asking the court to reconsider.  if you do not have one, you should consider hiring a family law specialist to assist you -- quickly.... Read More

Consult with a qualified family law specialist.  The case might (or might not) be proper to have brought there; if not, you could and perhaps should be in court here.  Either way, you should know the rules relating to jurisdiction (see "The Basics of Family Law Jurisdiction," posted at http://willicklawgroup.com/published-works/) and the applicable child support laws.... Read More