Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 42
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364.16 (2026)

Child support guidelines; establishment; use

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The Supreme Court shall provide by court rule, as a rebuttable presumption, guidelines for the establishment of all child support obligations. Child support shall be established in accordance with such guidelines, which guidelines are presumed to be in the best interests of the child, unless the court finds that one or both parties have produced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the application of the guidelines will result in a fair and equitable child support order.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Hotz v. Hotz, 301 Neb. 102 (Neb. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hotz v. Hotz, 301 Neb. 102 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “15 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364.16 (Reissue 2016).”
Moore v. Moore, 302 Neb. 588 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364.16 (Reissue 2016) states that child support shall be established in accordance with guidelines provided by the rules of the Supreme Court, unless one or both parties have produced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the application of the…”
Noonan v. Noonan, 624 N.W.2d 314 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 3× “(b) Overtime and Capital Gains Income When a court calculates the amount of child support to be paid, the court must consider the “Total Monthly Income,” defined as the “income of both parties derived from all sources.”
Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, 607 N.W.2d 517 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 3× “Applying a reasonableness test to these particular facts, we find no abuse of discretion in this division of property.”
Donald v. Donald, 296 Neb. 123 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 2× “[7,8] The evidence presented at trial clearly established that the lump-sum payment was for retroactive service-connected disability benefits.”
Pearson v. Pearson, 285 Neb. 686 (Neb. 2013). · cites it 2× “STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] Modification of child support payments is entrusted to the trial court’s discretion, and although, on appeal, the issue is reviewed de novo on the record, the decision of the trial court will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.”
Hajenga v. Hajenga, 601 N.W.2d 528 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 4× “While we refuse to come to any conclusion as to why the trial court in the instant case deviated from the guidelines, we will discuss whether a trial court can consider a party’s subsequent child in determining child support for purposes of remand.”
Huskey v. Huskey, 289 Neb. 439 (Neb. 2014). · cites it 4× “pport order that changes child support as it existed on the day prior to the military parent’s unit receiving notice of potential deployment, except that the court may issue a temporary child support order or temporary modification if there is clear and con- vincing evidence…”
Groseth v. Groseth, 600 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 4× “See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364.16 (Reissue 1998) (creating rebuttable presumption favoring application of *539 Nebraska Child Support Guidelines).”
Elsome v. Elsome, 601 N.W.2d 537 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364.16 (Reissue 1998) provides that support shall be set following the guidelines unless a basis for deviation is established.”
State on Behalf of AE v. Buckhalter, 730 N.W.2d 340 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 2× “22 See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364.16 (Reissue 2004); Gangwish v.”
State on Behalf of Hopkins v. Batt, 573 N.W.2d 425 (Neb. 1998). · cites it 2× “Nebraska Child Support Guidelines, paragraph C; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-364.16 (Cum. Supp. 1996); Oglesby, supra.”
Show all 65 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.