State on Behalf of Matchett v. Dunkle

• Decision Date: 03 December 1993
• Docket Number: No. S-91-1159,S-91-1159
• Citation: 244 Neb. 639,508 N.W.2d 580
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Nebraska on Behalf of Whitney MATCHETT, a Minor Child, Appellee, and Peggy Matchett, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Scott A. DUNKLE, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.

Page 580

508 N.W.2d 580

244 Neb. 639

STATE of Nebraska on Behalf of Whitney MATCHETT, a Minor Child, Appellee, and Peggy Matchett, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Scott A. DUNKLE, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.

No. S-91-1159.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Dec. 3, 1993.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below.

2. Child Support: Paternity. The father of a child whose paternity is established either by judicial proceedings or by acknowledgment shall be liable for its support to the same extent and in the same manner as the father of a child born in lawful wedlock is liable for its support.

3. Statutes. In the absence of anything indicating to the contrary, statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning; when the words of a statute are plain, direct, and unambiguous, no interpretation is necessary or will be indulged to ascertain their meaning.

4. Parent and Child. A parent is required to provide his or her child with the basic necessities of life.

Ronald L. Brown, of Brown & Tripp, P.C., Omaha, for appellant.

Patrick M. Heng, of Raynor, Rensch & Pfeiffer, Omaha, for appellee Peggy Matchett.

HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, CAPORALE, FAHRNBRUCH, and LANPHIER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-1402 (Reissue 1988) a trial court has authority to grant child support retroactive to the date that the mother began supporting a minor child who was born out of wedlock.

This court granted Peggy Matchett, mother of the minor child involved here, further review of the Nebraska Court of Appeals' decision affirming the judgment of the district court which held that it did not have the authority to grant retroactive child support in a paternity action.

We reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals as to that issue and remand the cause to that court with direction to remand the cause to the district court for Douglas County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

FACTS

On February 21, 1990, the State of Nebraska, on behalf of Matchett's minor child, filed a petition in the district court for Douglas County to establish that the appellant, Scott A. Dunkle, is the minor child's natural father. The petition also sought to require Dunkle to pay support for the minor child, who was born March 9, 1988. On her own motion, Matchett was added as a party plaintiff on January 29, 1991. Trial was had on October 30, 1991. On that date, Dunkle filed an "Objection to Certificate of Readiness for Trial and Trial" and also made an oral motion for a continuance. Both were overruled by the trial court.

At trial, genetic blood-testing results entered into evidence established with 99.84-percent certainty that Dunkle is the child's father. On appeal, Dunkle has not contested the trial court's finding that he is the father of Matchett's child.

Matchett testified at trial that she was requesting child support retroactively to the birth of her child and child-care expenses commencing January 4, 1991. In its decree dated December 26, 1991, the trial court ordered Dunkle to pay $390 per month in child support and $175 per month for child-care expenses commencing November 1, 1991, and to provide health insurance for the child from the date of the decree forward. Dunkle has not challenged these awards on appeal. The trial court specifically declined The trial court's overruling of Dunkle's objection to the certificate of readiness for trial and his oral motion for a continuance was appealed by Dunkle to the Court of Appeals. Matchett cross-appealed and assigned as error the trial court's failure to award retroactive child support and child-care expenses. The State did not file a cross-appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects.

to award retroactive child support. The court did not award retroactive child-care expenses.

Matchett successfully petitioned this court for further review on the issue of retroactive child support. She has not assigned or argued as error the issue of retroactive child-care expenses, and that issue is not before this court. Dunkle has not petitioned for further review, and therefore, the issues raised by Dunkle in the Court of Appeals are also not before this court.

MATCHETT'S ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In her assignment of error in the Court of Appeals and in this court, Matchett claims that the Court of Appeals and the district court erred in finding that the district court had no authority to award retroactive child support in paternity cases.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Statutory interpretation is a matter of law in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below. Malzahn v. Transit Authority, 244 Neb. 425, 507 N.W.2d 289 (1993); Douglas Cty. Bank & Trust v. Stamper, 244 Neb. 226, 505 N.W.2d 693 (1993).

RETROACTIVE CHILD SUPPORT

Matchett claims in her brief on cross-appeal and in her petition for further review that she is entitled to retroactive child support from the time of her child's birth, March 9, 1988. The petition filed by the State on behalf of Matchett's child in the trial court prayed for "prenatal, delivery and postnatal medical expenses incurred pursuant to the birth of the child in interest" and "the cost of providing for the physical needs of the child in interest since birth."

The record reflects that the State provided public assistance to Matchett from August 1987 through October 1989, in the amount of $5,094. However, the State did not cross-appeal the district court's failure to award retroactive child support for the period of August 1987 through October 1989. As a matter of fact, the State filed no cross-appeal in the Court of Appeals. At oral argument before the Court of Appeals and also before this court, counsel for Matchett stated that she was requesting child support retroactively only to November 1989, the time when Matchett was no longer on public assistance. See State on behalf of Matchett v. Dunkle, 3 NCA 912, 1993 WL 191769 (1993). That being true, whether retroactive child support should be granted for the period of March 9, 1988, through October 1989 is not before this court.

On Matchett's motion, the district court ordered that Dunkle pay temporary support for Matchett's minor child during the pendency of Dunkle's appeal, commencing January 1, 1992, in the same monthly amounts as awarded in the decree. Therefore, the period of time at issue in this appeal is only November 1989 through December 1991, a period of 26 months.

Matchett bases her claim to retroactive child support on the provisions of § 43-1402, which states in part, "The father of a child whose paternity is established either by judicial proceedings or by acknowledgment as hereinafter provided shall be liable for its support to the same extent and in the same manner as the father of a child born in lawful wedlock is liable for its support." (Emphasis supplied.)

In affirming the district court's refusal to award retroactive child...