Resources
Child Support Resource Library
Welcome to the YoungWilliams Child Support Resource Library. Search by keywords or use the filters 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.
State ex rel. Townsend v. Williamson (Tennessee 2018)
A parent may receive credit against any owed arrears for necessary expenditures, but the suit must be brought within six years of the expense and meet the definition. A parent has an obligation to support a child even in the absence of a valid court order. The father appealed a court order that did not give him credit for: support paid under an invalid order and necessary expenses. The appellate court upheld the order and found that even if a child support order is invalid, the obligation to support a child is still in place. The court further found that the list of items the father presented didn’t meet the definition of a necessary expense, which is that the child needed to goods or services, the custodial parent had an obligation to provide the goods and services, the custodial parent failed to provide the goods or services, and the actual cost.
Campbell v. Campbell (Mississippi 2018)
Modification of a child support order is only appropriate when there is a substantial change of circumstances that was not reasonably anticipated at the time of an agreement. The father appealed an upward modification of his child support. The terms of the original decree included a per child support amount and specified the conditions under which the obligation would end. The Chancellor found that the second child had joined the military and that was a substantial change. The Court of Appeals found otherwise. The Court found the language of the original agreement specifically provided that support for a child would end if a child joined the military. The Court gave father a credit for any amount he paid in excess of the original support amount.
State on behalf of Marcelo K. & Rycki K. v. Ricky K. (Nebraska 2018)
Only final orders are appealable. By final, the order must dispose of all of the issues. Ricky K. was the acknowledged father of two children. The State filed an action to establish support. Ricky filed an answer and cross-claim, alleging he was not the father of one of the children, and requesting joint custody and visitation for the other child. The disestablishment was referred to a referee. Ultimately, the District Court entered one order disestablishing paternity. The State appealed this order. Then, the District Court entered a second order addressing support for the other child. The Supreme Court found it had no jurisdiction to hear the first order because it was not final. It didn’t address all of the issues in the original complaint and cross–claim.
Kaplan v. Kaplan (North Carolina 2018)
The burden of proof in a child support contempt hearing shifts to the non-paying parent once a court enters an order to appear and show cause. The father appealed a contempt order. He argued he didn’t have the ability to pay the support or the purge condition. The appellate court affirmed the order and found that father didn’t appear at the contempt proceeding so he had no grounds to complain about the outcome. The appellate court found that the court properly found he had the ability to pay using the court’s prior orders and testimony from the mother.
Robeson County Enforcement Unit v. Harrison (North Carolina 2018)
A substantial change of circumstances must occur for a child support order to be modified. The father appealed an order modifying his support arguing that there was no substantial change of circumstances. His income had increased, but it increased some time ago. In fact, the parties agreed to the previous order, and his income had already changed at that time. The court of appeals disagreed. It noted that the change in father’s income was not disclosed in the earlier order. It found that the mother testified to changes in her situation, which coupled with the increased income, supported the modification of support.
Silver v. Silver (Nebraska 2018)
If payment of a child support obligation leaves a parent with a net income below the poverty line, Nebraska courts can consider specific costs related to supporting the child to get the parent back above the line. Supervised visitation is not one of those costs. An award of retroactive support must take into account the parent’s ability to pay. The father appealed a modification order which didn’t credit him for the cost of supervised visitation and set an award of retroactive support. He argued that the support order left him below the poverty line, and that he should get a dollar for dollar credit for the visitation costs. The court of appeals denied his request, stating that supervised visitation costs did not fall in the definition of support for the child. The father ignored professional advice that would have helped him graduate to unsupervised visitation. Because the order did not take into account the father’s ability to pay the retroactive support judgment as ordered, the court remanded the order for further findings.
2017 Preliminary Report
The FY 2017 Preliminary Report provides data for the past five fiscal years reported by state, District of Columbia, and U.S. territory child support programs and includes information on collections, expenditures, paternities, orders established, and other program statistics. The data is used to develop the Annual Report to Congress.
State ex rel. Lytle v. Webb (Tennessee 2018)
Adequate findings must support the determination of an arrearage amount. The father appealed an order setting arrears. The arrears were determined in a modification order, but the state filed to alter/amend the arrears amount. The court amended the amount, and father filed to set aside this order. He argued that there was no evidence to support how the trial court calculated the arrears or interest amount. The appellate court agreed with the father. It could not determine how the trial court had calculated the arrears so the case was remanded for further findings.
Hewitt v. Hewitt (North Carolina 2018)
Competent evidence must support the finding of income for child support purposes. A parent should receive credit for maintaining health insurance for the children. The father appealed the decree of divorce, arguing that the court didn’t properly determine his income and that he should receive credit for paying for the children’s insurance. The court of appeals agreed. It found that there was a difference between the amount of income on the child support worksheet, the amount the father testified to earning, and the amount in the order, and no explanation for the difference. The court also found he should receive credit for the insurance premium. The court reversed the order and remanded for further findings.
State ex rel. Nichols v. Songstad (Tennessee 2018)
Child support cannot be modified without court permission even when the number of children for whom the parent is responsible changes. The parent must file for a modification, provide notice to the other parents, and prove a significant variance. The mother and father were divorced, and the father was ordered to pay support for their two children. Upon the emancipation of the first child, the father unilaterally began paying about half the amount of the ordered support. After the second child emancipated, the mother filed to establish arrears and/or modify the support order. The trial court determined the amount of arrears and ordered the father to pay. The father appealed, arguing a parent has no duty to support a child after emancipation and that emancipation is not a modification. The appellate court held that a significant variance must exist before an order can be modified. By current statute, the significant variance is 15 percent in the child support amount, even if the number of children for whom the parent is responsible for supporting has changed.
