¶1concurring.
¶2I concur in the result in this case and in the opinion holding that there has been no change of circumstances that would justify this court’s interference with the original decree in the case.
¶3Implied in the opinion is the power of the District Court and this court, in a divorce case, to enter orders directing the parties to take actions that affect the income tax liability of the parties. I do not think that the District Court or this court has any jurisdiction, either directly or indirectly, to do this. There is absolutely no statutory authority for the entry of such an order. It opens a Pandora’s box of conflict and confusion with federal and internal revenue jurisdiction over tax exemption decisions.
¶4It is settled and fundamental law in the State of Nebraska that jurisdiction of the court in matters relating to divorce and alimony and child support is given by the statute and every power exercised by our courts with reference thereto must look for its source in the statute or it does not exist. Harrington v. Grieser, 154 Neb. 685, 48 N. W. 2d 753; Cizek v. Cizek, on rehearing, 69 Neb. 800, 99 N. W. 28; Ruehle v. Ruehle, 161 Neb. 691, 74 N. W. 2d 689; Timmerman v. Timmerman, 163 Neb. 704, 81 N. W. 2d 135.