Welcome to the YoungWilliams Research & Case Law Library. Use the filters below to select categories of interest to you. Currently our Library consists of academic and government research articles and reports from around the country, federal opinions, and case law from states in which our full service child support projects are located: Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Sign up to receive updates by clicking the blue box at the left of the page.
Disclaimer: YoungWilliams does not endorse the reports or opinions expressed by non-YoungWilliams authors, nor do we endorse the entities that initially released or published the materials posted on our website.
Hart v. Hart (North Carolina 2019)
Failing to include a corrected support order with a packet for registration is procedural, not jurisdictional, and doesn’t necessarily bar a court from modifying the support order. The parents divorced in Washington, and the father was ordered to pay support. The support order was amended twice, once to reflect the mother and children’s move to North Carolina, and once to fix a typographical error. The father also moved to North Carolina. The mother registered the support order for enforcement. When she filed to register, she didn’t include the corrected order. The father filed to modify support and included all three orders in his filing. The trial court granted his petition and credited him for a substantial amount of support. The mother appealed.
Poole v. Kinslow (Tennessee 2019)
If a court finds a parent voluntarily underemployed, it may use the parent’s earning capacity to calculate child support. In this divorce action, the trial court calculated support using the father’s earning capacity. He was self-employed at the time of trial, but he had earned no income. The father appealed. The court of appeals affirmed.
Sensing v. Sensing (Tennessee 2019)
The parent requesting the child support modification bears the burden of proving a significant variance exists between the existing support amount and the amount based on the parent’s current income. The father filed to modify his child support, and the court denied his petition. He appealed on the basis that the court improperly imputed capital gains income to him and that the court applied an improper legal standard. The court of appeals disagreed.
Fireoved v. Fireoved (Kansas 2019)
The application of the multi-family credit is discretionary. When calculating support, the costs of the child’s health insurance and reasonable costs of child care are added to the gross child support obligation.
State v. McKee (Kansas 2019)
A prior conviction of nonpayment of child support may not be used to prove the element of intent in a subsequent proceeding. The father was convicted of nonpayment of support in 2003. He was charged on a separate count in 2012.
Unger v. Unger (North Carolina 2019)
Criminal contempt for child support is appropriate when the contempt addresses past violations of a child support order. The inclusion of a purge provision doesn’t change the contempt to civil. The father failed to make child support payments, and in 2012, the mother filed for contempt.
In re N.J.C. (Colorado 2019)
Deferred compensation isn’t income for child support when a parent doesn’t have the ability to use the money to pay expenses. The mother and father were unmarried and had a child. The father, a doctor, took a new job, and the mother filed to modify child support.
Schwager v. Messer (Tennessee 2019)
The start date for a modified child support amount is the date that the action as filed. The parents divorced, and in the decree agreed to a downward deviation of support for two years. At that time, they would exchange financial information and recalculate support.
In re Thrailkill (Kansas 2019)
Military retirement benefits are income for child support. The mother filed for divorce. Both parents were retired military. The father was career military and was currently receiving retirement and disability benefits.
State of Tennessee ex rel. Haynes v. Daugherty
In a contempt proceeding, a court may not impose a cash-only bond. This violates the parent’s constitutional right to pretrial release, equal protection, and due process.