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.
Kaiser v. Kaiser (North Carolina 2018)
Findings must support a court’s determination of an asset as income for child support purposes. The mother and the father were divorced, and the trial court set child support. Mother appealed the child support order, arguing that the court incorrectly included capital gains, dividends, and payments from her boyfriend for rent as income. She also argued the court incorrectly calculated the husband’s business income and excluded payments from his parents from his income. The appellate court addressed each source of income individually. The court remanded for further findings with respect to the capital gains, dividends, and payments from the boyfriend. The court upheld the decision excluding loans the husband received from his parents from his income and as to the determination of the business income.
In re Marriage of Hou and Chu (Kansas 2018)
A court can deviate from the amount of presumptive support as long as findings support the reason for deviation. The divorce decree in this case ordered the father to pay child support, plus half of the children’s extracurricular activities. The father appealed, arguing that an amount for extracurricular activities was included in the guideline calculation. The appellate court found that while direct expenses are included in the child support schedule, a court can also deviate from that amount as long as the deviation is justified. The journal entries reflected findings that participation in extracurricular activities served the children’s best interests and that the mother could not afford the activities on her own.
The Story Behind the Numbers: Exploring Trends in the Percent of Orders for Zero Dollars
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement collects data from state child support agencies on the number of support orders that do not have a dollar support amount, referred to as zero orders. These may reflect different types of orders – medical support only, shared custody, arrears only, or current support with no amount due.
Zero orders have been increasing over time within the child support program. Today, they represent 10% of support orders nationally. This particular Story Behind the Numbers explores this trend and examines why zero orders have become more common in the child support program.
In re Biehl (Kansas 2018)
A paternity order may not be final for appellate purposes if it doesn’t address child support and other matters incident to the paternity establishment. The mother in this case appealed the denial of her motion to set aside a journal entry to paternity. The appellate court found it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the paternity order was not a final decision. The order left custody, parenting time, child support, and the tax exemption for a future date. Kansas law sets out several issues that must be addressed in a paternity action such as support and payment of birth costs. Therefore, the order was not final and not ripe for appellate review.
Hance v. Hance (Tennessee 2018)
The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction over dependency and neglect proceedings including child support. If there is also an open action in chancery court, the jurisdiction of the chancery court is suspended. The mother and father in this case divorced in chancery court. A few months later, the father filed to modify the parenting plan. On the same day, the Department of Children’s Services filed a dependency and neglect petition in juvenile court. A few days later, the chancery court entered an order modifying the mother’s parenting time, child support, and the tax exemption provision. Several months later, the mother appealed this order arguing that the chancery court was without jurisdiction to enter the order. The appellate court agreed. It noted that subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. It further found that Tennessee statute gives juvenile courts exclusive jurisdiction over dependency and neglect proceedings unless the case is dismissed, the custody determination is transferred to another court, a petition for adoption is filed, or the child reaches the age of eighteen.
Madigan v. Madigan (North Carolina 2018)
Income for child support purposes is normally based on a parent’s actual income but it can be imputed to a parent if the evidence shows the parent isn’t earning up to his or her earning potential. The mother appealed the trial court’s determination of her income arguing that the trial court improperly imputed income to her. The appellate court found that the trial court figured the child support amount using the mother’s actual income and referenced imputed income only as an alternative basis. The mother didn’t appeal the amount of income, just the concept that income was imputed to her. The appellate court found ample evidence to support the amount of actual income.
Goodrich v. Goodrich (Tennessee 2018)
For child support purposes, a court can impute income to a parent that is higher than the parent’s actual income. The father appealed the district court order finding him underemployed and imputing income to him. He argued that he had involuntarily left his previous job and could not find an equivalent job. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The determination of underemployment is a matter of fact. The court should review the circumstances under which the parent left the job and the parent’s efforts to find a new job. The court found the evidence supported the district court findings that the father’s attempts to find a job were not reasonable and that his new job at a family business was suspect.
McCullough v. McCullough (Nebraska 2018)
A parent must make child support payments even if a modification is pending. The father appealed a district court order finding him in contempt for failure to pay child support. He argued that he had filed to modify the support order and that the new order might affect the amount of support owed. The Supreme Court disagreed. It found that a decree of dissolution remains in effect until officially modified. A pending modification does not excuse nonpayment of the child support obligation.
Calleja v. Calleja (Nebraska 2018)
A court may use actual income, not earning capacity, for child support purposes even when a parent makes a job change and the new job results in less income. The father, a tile installer, left a job to start his own business. As a result, his income decreased. The district court calculated support using his actual income from his business. The mother appealed, arguing the court should have used his earning capacity. The appellate court disagreed and found that the decision was well within the Court’s discretion. The evidence showed that father changed jobs in good faith and that mother had no objection to his job change at the time.
Behavioral Intervention Materials Compendium
The Behavioral Interventions to Advance Self-Sufficiency (BIAS) project team, led by MDRC and sponsored by the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE) of the Administration for Children and Families in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, partnered with eight state and local agencies to design and implement 15 behavioral interventions, involving close to 100,000 human services clients. The BIAS project demonstrated how tools from behavioral science could be used to deliver program services more effectively, targeting three human services domains: child support, child care, and work support. The compendium contains all of the printed materials that were designed as part of those interventions. The BIAS team’s objective in sharing these materials is to assist practitioners and program designers in developing future behavioral interventions and, more specifically, in crafting written materials that are informed by behavioral science. In sharing these intervention materials, the team hopes that others can learn how specific behavioral concepts were operationalized in different settings and formats (that is, mail, text messages, and email). The team also aims to spark future innovative interventions and help scale behavioral interventions where evidence has already been built.
