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.
Summerville v. Summerville (North Carolina 2018)
A child support order cannot be modified sua sponte. The father appealed a district court order modifying his child support obligation, arguing that neither party had requested a modification of support. The appellate court agreed and found that there was no request to modify child support before the court. There is a line of North Carolina cases that have upheld modifying the support order in the absence of a specific request. However, in these cases, the court had a substitute for a motion in the cause or a consent agreement. That was not the case in this situation.
Metzler v. Metzler (Nebraska 2018)
Due process requires that a court have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident parent before it can determine child support. For a court to have personal jurisdiction over a parent, the parent must have minimum contacts with the state of Nebraska such that the parent could expect to be called into court. The father, a Nebraska resident, filed for divorce in Nebraska and asked the court to determine custody and child support. He served the mother in Pennsylvania. The mother, who had never been to Nebraska, filed to dismiss for a lack of jurisdiction, and the district court granted the motion. The father appealed. The Court of Appeals found that while the court has jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage, it does not have jurisdiction to determine custody and support. The Court of Appeals noted that the state has an interest in the marital status of its residents that justifies dissolving a marriage for a properly domiciled person. However, to decide custody and support, the parties must have sufficient contacts with the state of Nebraska. In this case, the mother and the children have had no contract with Nebraska. The parents married and separated in Canada, and the mother and children had never visited Nebraska.
Kline v. Holmes (Kansas 2018)
The presumption of paternity is not conclusive and can be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence. The rebuttal can also be overcome. In this case, the district court established parentage for a child who was born to a same-sex couple by applying the presumption that the “notorious” presumption. The biological mother of the child appealed, arguing that the presumption didn’t apply to the other parent, that the district court incorrectly treated the presumption as conclusive, and even so, that evidence rebutted the presumption. The court of appeals found that prior case law established that the paternity presumptions can be used to establish paternity for same-sex parents. However, the court of appeals found that the district court did improperly treat the presumption as conclusive and remanded the case for further findings with respect to the rebuttal of the presumption and if the rebuttal was overcome.
Carlson v. Carlson (Nebraska 2018)
In a divorce, parents may enter into a property settlement agreement (PSA) on all terms, including child support. Once approved, the PSA becomes a judgment, and when construction issues arise, the court must use the four corners of document. During the divorce proceeding, the parents agreed to a term of the PSA that the father “may pay” child support past the age of emancipation if certain conditions were met. Several years later, the father stopped paying support for the youngest child, and the mother filed an action for declaratory judgment. The father also filed for a declaratory judgment or to modify the PSA. The district court construed the decree to read that the father’s support obligation continued past emancipation and dismissed his modification request. The father appealed, arguing that the word “may” was permissive, not mandatory. In the alternative, the court should have granted his motion to modify the post-support provision. The Supreme Court agreed with the district court. It read all the provisions of the PSA together and found that the terms supported continuing his obligation past the age of majority as long as the conditions were met. It further found that when parents voluntarily agree to a term such a post-majority support in a PSA, the term will not be modified unless there is fraud or gross inequity.
Strickland v. Strickland Day (Mississippi 2018)
An anonymous sperm donor is not the legal father of a child and has no parental rights. A same-sex couple married and had a child using artificial insemination. One partner carried the child. The parents divorced, and the Chancery Court found that the child was born during the marriage, but not of the marriage. While the other parent had stood in loco parentis for the child, the sperm donor was the child’s legal father and his rights would have to be terminated for there to be another legal parent. The Supreme Court disagreed. It found that biology alone does not determine parentage. The parents agreed to have a child and had co-parented the child. The other parent relied on a belief that she was the co-parent of the child and took on parenting responsibilities. The Court found no reason to give rights to an anonymous donor who had no intention of having a relationship with the child.
Heisinger v. Riley (Mississippi 2018)
A Mississippi court can modify the support provisions of a properly registered child support order. The mother registered an Iowa child support order in Mississippi. She then requested a modification, which the chancellor denied. The chancellor found that the mother had not showed the order met the requirements for a modification under Iowa law. The Court of Appeals disagreed. UIFSA forbids the modification of specific provisions of a child support order, but the support amount is not one of those provisions. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and remanded the order for modification consistent with Mississippi law.
Harden v. Scarborough (Mississippi 2018)
A child support calculation should reflect the amount of income a parent is actually earning. It shouldn’t be based on a speculated decrease in income. A temporary order set child support for the father based on his income as a teacher and a coach. By the time of trial, the father had resigned his coaching position, and he submitted a new a financial statement that reflected the loss of his income from coaching. The trial court continued the temporary support amount, and the father appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the support amount. The father couldn’t testify to his new income amount or how the reduced income would change his itemized deductions such as taxes. The Court declined to address whether the voluntary resignation should result in imputing income to the father.
Keruzis-Thorson v. Thorson (Nebraska 2018)
A parent must provide the cost of a health insurance premium attributable to child to receive a deduction from gross income for purposes of calculating income for child support. The district court gave the father credit for the cost of his health insurance premium. The mother appealed arguing that the father didn’t prove the cost of the health insurance for the child. The Appellate Court agreed with the mother and remanded the case for a new child support calculation.
2016 OCSE Annual Report to Congress
The 2016 Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) Annual Report to Congress highlights financial and statistical child support achievements based on data reported by state and tribal child support agencies. The content of the Annual Report is mandated by Section 452(a) under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act to give congressional members information that relates to the overall operations and success of the national child support program.
State v. Rogelio L. (Nebraska 2018)
In a modification action, the court may deviate from presumptive support for children born subsequent to the order. The father filed to modify his support order based on a reduction in his income. The father testified he didn’t pay taxes, but deducted taxes to reach his proposed net income. The district court dismissed the modification action, finding no substantial change in circumstances. The district court didn’t adopt father’s net income calculation and didn’t give him credit for children born after entry of the order. The father appealed. The Supreme Court upheld the district court’s decision regarding the taxes finding that the father shouldn’t get credit for taxes he doesn’t pay. The Supreme Court reversed the decision not giving credit for additional children, stating that district court didn’t understand the birth order of the father’s children and so didn’t apply the statute correctly.
