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.
Tigart v. Tigart (Tennessee 2021)
A child support order can be modified when there is a significant variance, which means at least a fifteen percent difference in the current support obligation and the proposed support amount. In the original parenting plan, the parents agreed to an upward deviation in child support so the children could enjoy the same lifestyle. The mother filed to modify the parenting plan and for contempt. The father answered and filed a motion to set aside the divorce decree. The trial court denied the father’s motion to set aside but reduced support based on the father’s new amount of parenting time and his additional child. The mother filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment arguing there was no substantial variance in support. The trial court granted this motion and reinstated support as agreed to in the original parenting plan. The father appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The parents agreed to the upward deviation to ensure the children maintained their lifestyle. The Court of Appeals found no evidence this had changed. Since there was no change in the reason for the deviation, the proposed amount of support would need to vary from the amount of support in the current order, excluding the deviation. Even when factoring in the additional parenting time and new child, the current amount of presumptive order did not vary enough from the proposed amount.
Toro v. Toro (Nebraska 2021)
A trial court’s determination of income won’t be disturbed on appeal without a clear abuse of discretion. The parents filed for divorce. They had two children. The court had to calculate the father’s net monthly income for support. He worked construction and took side jobs for cash. He submitted his income tax returns for the last three years. The trial court used his 2019 tax return to calculate his monthly income and found the father has an earning capacity of $60,000. The father appealed, arguing the court should have averaged his income for the past three years. The appellate court affirmed. First, the father didn’t work a complete year in 2017, so it wouldn’t have been appropriate to include that amount in an average. His gross receipts for 2018 and 2019 were around $60,000. There wasn’t enough difference to warrant an average. It could have been an abuse of discretion to use gross receipts as income because that amount doesn’t account for allowable business deductions. However, the trial court may have questioned some of his deductions, including deductions for car expenses that fluctuated widely.
Jefferson v. Jefferson (Mississippi 2021)
Nontaxable federal payments for military members such as basic allowable housing (BAH), basic allowable subsistence (BAS), cost of living and a clothing allowance are income for child support. The parents filed for divorce. The father was a military member and received benefits on top of his regular salary including BAS, BAH, cost-of-living allowance, and clothing allowance. The father appealed, arguing these benefits should not be counted as income. The court of appeals affirmed. The court cited precedent for including military benefits in gross income. The father earned the payments and the payments assisted the father with his monthly expenses. Therefore, they are income for child support.
Snowden v. Jaure (Wyoming 2021)
A parent who chooses not to work can be considered voluntarily underemployed. The father filed to modify support based on an increase in the mother’s income. In her financial affidavit, the mother represented she had no income. She testified she had worked in the oil and gas industry, had been laid off due to the pandemic, and was choosing to stay at home with her younger children. The trial court reduced her prior earnings by twenty five percent and imputed her at that amount. The father’s financial affidavit showed he only worked 20 hours per week. The court adjusted his monthly income for forty hours per week and then reduced the amount by the same twenty five percent. The final order set support for the mother to pay the father. The mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed. The mother argued her income should be zero. The Supreme Court noted precedent for imputing income to an able-bodied parent who chooses to stay at home. Based on that precedent, the Court found no abuse of discretion in imputing income to the mother.
Johnson v. Johnson (Nebraska 2021)
For child support to be properly before the court, the pleading must contain the right language. The original divorce decree granted the parents shared custody of their two children and set child support at zero. The father filed to modify custody and support and the mother counterclaimed for a modification of custody and support consistent with the Nebraska guidelines. The final order found neither party met the burden to change custody. The mother filed to alter or amend the order requesting the court address a material change of circumstances with respect to support. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order for father to pay the mother. The father appealed. He argued the mother didn’t specifically plead for a modification of child support and it wasn’t properly before the court. The appellate court affirmed the modification. The mother pled for a modification of custody and, independently, an order of support consistent with the Nebraska guidelines. Her request for support was separate from her request for custody. The language of her pleading was enough to put support at issue. Additionally, both parents presented evidence about their income during the hearings. The mother met her burden to prove a material change of circumstances that wasn’t temporary or foreseeable.
Sallae v. Omar (Nebraska 2021)
A parent who seeks to modify a child support order must show a ten percent change in support, upward or downward, due to financial circumstances which have lasted three months and that will most likely continue for another six months. In this case, the initial support order required the father to pay monthly child support of $50. The mother filed to modify support citing the parties change in employment and income. Testimony showed the father had worked but was not working at the time of hearing. He testified he could only work 20 hours per week, and he suffered from sleeping issues and other ailments. He offered no supporting documentation. The mother was eligible for a raise, which meant the child no longer qualified for Medicaid. She was going to have to insure him through her employer-provided insurance. The trial court calculated the father’s income using his average earnings from the time he was employed. The trial court used the mother’s current hourly wage to calculate her income and credited her for the health insurance premium. The final order increased support. The father appealed. He argued the mother had not shown a material change in circumstances. The appellate court found the guideline support amount met the modification requirement and created a rebuttable presumption. The father failed to rebut the presumption. He provided no proof of his inability to work. The trial court correctly used the mother’s current hourly wage to compute income. Any raise amount was speculative. The court also properly gave her credit for the health insurance premium. She submitted an exhibit as to the amount of the premium, and the father didn’t object. He also didn’t argue that she would be required to cover the child.
O’Roake v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Dept’ Family Svcs. (Wyoming 2021)
Child support can continue beyond the age of majority if a child is mentally or physically disabled and incapable of self-support. The Department of Family Services filed extend support for a child beyond the age of the child’s majority due to the child’s diagnosis of a metabolic disorder. The court commissioner recommended modifying support, and the district approved the recommendation. The order continued support so long as the child was enrolled as a full-time college student. The father appealed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Per statute, a child must be incapable of self-support for child support to continue beyond the age of majority. The order found the child incapable of self-support due to his diagnosis but conditioned payment of support on the child’s enrollment in college. This created an inconsistency. The Supreme Court remanded with instructions to correct the inconsistency. ex rel. Dept’ Family Svcs,. 202 WY 90 (2021). Child support can continue beyond the age of majority if a child is mentally or physically disabled and incapable of self-support. The Department of Family Services filed extend support for a child beyond the age of the child’s majority due to the child’s diagnosis of a metabolic disorder. The court commissioner recommended modifying support, and the district approved the recommendation. The order continued support so long as the child was enrolled as a full-time college student. The father appealed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Per statute, a child must be incapable of self-support for child support to continue beyond the age of majority. The order found the child incapable of self-support due to his diagnosis but conditioned payment of support on the child’s enrollment in college. This created an inconsistency. The Supreme Court remanded with instructions to correct the inconsistency.
Abney v. Pace (Tennessee 2021)
If a parent provides health insurance for a child on top of the court-ordered insurance, the cost must be a reasonable for the parent to receive credit for the premium. In the parent’s divorce decree, the father was ordered to pay support and provide health insurance. The father filed to modify support. The mother answered claiming the father had not provided her with proof of the insurance and she counterclaimed for contempt for failure to pay support. The mother obtained health insurance for the child and requested credit for the premium. She argued no significant variance existed to justify the modification, but this argument hinged on her receiving credit for the premium. The trial court found the father had provided insurance as ordered and declined to give mother credit for her premium. The final order modified support and held the father in contempt but found it cured. While the father had technically failed to pay support as ordered, he ended up with an overpayment as a result of the modification. The overpayment purged the contempt. The mother appealed. The appellate court affirmed. It found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision. Her request for credit for the premium hinged on the definition of reasonable. The trial court properly found the mother’s cost unreasonable as the Father had already provided insurance as ordered. The amount of presumptive support then met the variance requirement for modification, so support was appropriately decreased. Civil contempt is meant to encourage compliance, and it was within the trial court’s discretion to use the overpayments to purge the contempt.
Chalmers v. Burrough (Kansas 2021)
A parent’s failure to comply with the registration procedure for UIFSA doesn’t deprive a district court of general subject matter jurisdiction over support orders. The father filed to register and modify a Florida support order in Kansas but failed to attach a copy of the original order, as required by statute. The court temporarily modified support. The mother filed to dismiss the action based on the father’s failure to comply with the registration procedure, arguing the court was without jurisdiction over the order. The father filed for permission to amend his pleading. The district court granted the mother’s motion to dismiss the case. Because it found it had no jurisdiction, the court didn’t rule on the father’s request to amend his pleading or on the mother’s motion to set aside the temporary order. The appellate court affirmed the decision. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court found the language of UIFSA, as set out in Kansas statute, doesn’t limit a court’s general jurisdiction or condition jurisdiction on proper registration. A parent’s failure to comply with the registration process doesn’t mean a court is completely without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court remanded with instructions to consider two outstanding motions.
Stephens v. Stephens (Mississippi 2021)
To modify a child support order, there must be a substantial and material change not anticipated at the time of the original order. To contest a contempt finding, the parent must show evidence of the inability to pay. The parents in this case divorced and the final decree reflected their agreement as to child support and uncovered medical expenses. The mother subsequently filed numerous petitions for contempt, all of which ended in a contempt finding. This appeal consolidates the father’s appeal of the two latest orders. The chancery court denied his request for modification and found him in contempt. The court of appeals affirmed both orders. The chancery court properly denied his request to modify. The father claimed a decrease in income, but he had voluntarily left his job. Evidence showed his standard of living hadn’t changed even though he claimed less income. The contempt finding was also correct. The father argued he shouldn’t have been found in contempt as he had filed to modify his support. The appellate court noted his modification filing wasn’t timely and he provided no evidence of his inability to pay.
