Weinand v. Weinand
Nebraska Supreme Court
616 N.W.2d 1 (2000)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Mark Weinand (defendant) and Debra Weinand (plaintiff) were married in December 1990. Debra gave birth to a daughter, Nicole, in July 1995, and Mark treated Nicole as his daughter. Debra and Mark separated in February 1997. Debra then started living with Bradley Sinsel, who became a father figure to Nicole. Debra filed a petition for divorce in March 1997. During the divorce proceeding, Bradley Sinsel intervened after acknowledging that he was Nicole’s biological father. After genetic testing confirmed Sinsel was Nicole’s biological father, the divorce proceedings continued. The district court determined Sinsel was Nicole’s biological father and declined to enter an order for child support as to Sinsel. The district court also approved of Debra and Mark’s marital settlement agreement, a document outlining the division of property. The district court also found that it was in the best interest of the child for Nicole to continue a relationship with Mark. The district court also found that Mark should pay child support because of his continuing relationship with Nicole. Mark appealed the district court order requiring him to pay child support, and Debra cross-appealed, challenging the trial court’s method of calculating child support.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gerrard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.