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.
Porter v. Porter (Nebraska 2021)
To be considered final and appealable, an order must affect a substantial right. The mother filed to modify child support and served the father, who appeared at the initial hearing. He failed to appear at a later hearing and the court entered a default judgement against him for support. The father filed to vacate or alter the order, and the trial court set aside the judgment. The mother appealed. The Supreme Court found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the order in that it was not final. To be considered final, an order must affect a substantial right. The mother argued she hadn’t received support in several years and this order obligated the father to pay support. The order would force her to start the process over. The Supreme Court found this argument sympathetic but unpersuasive. Setting aside the default only means the father has a chance to defend the action. The mother’s right to support isn’t compromised.
Carman v. Harris (Kansas 2021)
A child support order can provide for payment of prenatal and birth expenses if the request is made timely. The 2015 initial paternity order contained no provision for the mother’s prenatal medical care or birth expenses. Mother made no attempt to recover these costs until 2016 when she filed a request for the expenses and to modify support. The trial court denied her request and the mother appealed. The appellate court upheld this portion of the order, as did the Supreme Court. The mother’s request wasn’t timely. She didn’t ask for the expenses during the paternity proceeding and didn’t avail herself of any remedies for relief from a judgement at that time. At this point, she was asking to modify the order. Modifications of child support orders are retroactive to the first day of the month following the filing of motion to modify. Allowing the expenses at this point would be an impermissible retroactive modification.
Amsden v. Amsden (Nebraska 2021)
A settlement agreement is subject to the principles of contact law. If the parties haven’t agreed to essential terms, then there is no agreement. Following the father’s filing of a petition to modify custody, the parents in this case reached a settlement agreement. The parties read the agreement into the record during court, acknowledging the child support worksheet still needed to be completed. The trial court gave the parties time to do so. Eventually, the father filed a motion to enforce the agreement. The trial court granted the motion and ordered the mother to pay support. The mother appealed. The appellate court found the order enforcing the settlement agreement appropriate as to custody. The appellate court reversed and remanded as to child support. The appellate court found no evidence of an agreement with respect to the child support amount. The parties acknowledged as much during the reading of the agreement into the record. Only the father signed the filed parenting plan. Nothing in the record established income at the time of the modification.
Bennett v. Bennett (Mississippi 2021)
The expenses associated with raising a child are expected to increase as the child ages but the specific amount isn’t foreseeable. An action to modify the child support amount may be necessary. The mother filed to find the father in contempt for failure to pay child support and to modify the order. She alleged her expenses had increased since the father hadn’t exercised visitation, the father had failed to pay his share of medical expenses, and the father had a second job and was earning additional income. The district court denied the contempt petition but increased the support amount. The father appealed. The appellate court affirmed the order. The evidence showed both children had increased medical expenses. The father had retired and taken a second job. These two facts constituted a material change of circumstances.
Cousin v. Cousin (North Carolina 2021)
A court can use a parent’s prior income to calculate gross monthly income but findings must support the decision. This case came before the district court in early 2018. During the trial, the father testified as to his income so far 2018. Evidence showed his income for 2016 and 2017 and bonuses received during both years. The father testified he had yet to receive a bonus in 2018 and didn’t know if he would. To calculate the father’s income for child support, the district court used his 2017 income and added in an amount to cover a bonus. This meant the parties’ combined adjusted gross income was above the upper limit for the child support guidelines. The court awarded support using a non-guideline determination. The father appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded the child support provision. A court can use prior years’ earning to calculate income but it must make findings as to why it did so. The decree lacked these findings. The decree also contained no findings to indicate father’s testimony about his current income was unreliable. The appellate court reversed for further findings.
Langley v. Langely (Nebraska 2021)
A correct result in a child support modification will not be set aside even if the court applied the wrong reasoning. In the original divorce decree, neither party was ordered to pay support based on the close to equal parenting schedule. The mother filed to modify custody and the father counterclaimed to modify custody and support. The father alleged his reduced income as a substantial change of circumstances. The trial court granted the modification based on the amount of time the children spent with each parent and ordered the mother to pay support. The mother appealed. The appellate court upheld the decision but on different grounds. It found the parenting time wasn’t a substantial change in circumstances in that the parents were following the plan set out in the decree. However, the father was earning substantially less than before and the support amount met the criteria for a modification.
In the Interest of KLW and JLW (Colorado 2021)
The Colorado Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) does not allow for a child to have more than two legal parents. When there are two competing unrebutted presumptions, the court must decide which presumption controls based on the weightier considerations of policy and logic. The children in this case had three possible parents: their mother, CLF, who was in a relationship with their mother, and their biological father. The children were removed from their mother in a dependency and neglect action. CLF filed a motion to declare her as the mother of the children. Following a hearing, the juvenile court named the biological father as the legal parent, and CLF appealed. The appellate court upheld the decision. The plain language of the UPA in Colorado requires the court determine which presumption controls. The effect is that in Colorado, a child can only have two legal parents. Other jurisdictions may allow more than two parents but the statutes in these jurisdictions address this possibility. CLF argued the holding out presumption was stronger and she should have been named the children’s legal parent. The appellate court found no merit to this argument. The juvenile court findings reflected a consideration of the children’s best interests even if the specific words weren’t used. CLF argued the juvenile court applied the wrong standard to the evidence. The appellate court acknowledged this error but found no cause for reversal.
State ex rel. Roberts v. Crafton (Tennessee 2021)
A child support order may be void on grounds of public policy if it relieves both parents of their obligation to pay support. The original divorce decree in this case ordered the father to pay half of the children’s private school tuition in lieu of child support. If the children stopped attending private school, then support would be calculated under the guidelines. Subsequently, the case was transferred from Circuit Court to Juvenile Court. The father filed many motions all with the objective of setting aside the tuition provision. The father filed an appeal of the denial of his latest motion. In the appeal, he argued the original child support order was void as to public policy and the Juvenile Court had no jurisdiction over the tuition provision because it was a contract modifiable only in Circuit Court. The court of appeals found the original support order was valid under public policy. Both parents were still obligated to support their children. The appeal time for this order and the subsequent orders in the case had long since run and that would have been the way to challenge the original order. The appellate court found that the Juvenile Court properly exercised jurisdiction over the tuition provision. When the tuition provision became part of the final divorce decree, it lost any contractual nature and was subject to modification in the Juvenile Court.
McGrath v. Hester (Tennessee 2021)
A clear and unambiguous provision of an agreed-to parenting plan is enforceable. The parents in this case agreed to a provision in their parenting plan requiring them to each maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of $300,000 for the benefit of their children until completion of the child support obligation. The father, who remarried, passed away. He left a life insurance policy, and the mother filed a complaint requesting a constructive trust for the $300,000. The father’s wife objected and questioned the requirement for the father to carry the life insurance policy. The parenting plan had been modified several times. The trial court granted the mother’s summary judgement motion but only awarded her the amount of support due to the children and denied her request for a constructive trust. The mother appealed. The appellate court modified the judgment amount to reflect the entire $300,000. Both parties agreed the children had a vested interest in the proceeds of the life insurance policy and as to which plan controlled. The controlling plan contained a clear and unambiguous provision requiring each parent was to maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of $300,000 for the children’s benefit. The provision didn’t limit the amount or indicate it was only to cover any outstanding support.
Bowmaker v. Rollman (Nebraska 2021)
Principles of equity may guide a trial court in crafting a decision under specific circumstances in a child support case. The mother registered a Kansas divorce decree in Nebraska and then filed to modify it and for a finding of contempt against the father for a failure to pay support. Prior to hearing, the parties agreed to a parenting agreement that modified child support. The court approved the agreement pending resolution of several other issues. Prior to entry of the final order, the father filed to set aside the parenting agreement due to a significant decrease in his income. The trial court set aside the agreement but offered the mother the opportunity to do additional discovery about the father’s income. The mother did not so do, and in the final order, the court set support consistent with the father’s reduced income. The trial court also determined the father owed no arrearage. The mother appealed. The appellate court affirmed the order. On both appellate grounds, equitable principles justified the trial court’s decisions. The father had a significant downturn in his business due to COVID and his income decreasing significantly from the start of the action to the time he asked for the set aside. Under these circumstances, it was appropriate for the trial court to use its equitable powers to set aside its approval of the parenting agreement. The proceeding was not yet complete, and the trial court gave the mother the opportunity to conduct additional discovery. The appellate court also upheld the dismissal of the contempt. Under an agreement with the mother, the father had made payments outside of the child support obligation. Equity justified giving him credit for these payments against his child support obligation.
