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.
Gathering and Using Family Input to Improve Child Support and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Approaches from the Human Services Field
Human services agencies are finding great value of engaging the families they serve in designing programs. Doing this helps combat issues of access, quality, and equity and ensures the families’ needs are being met. This brief provides examples of human-centered design practices and how agencies use the input to inform policy and operations. Agencies engage families at five levels: inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower. Part of the process is building trust with the families so the families provide honest feedback.
Characteristics of Complex Families in Maryland’s Child Support Caseload
A complex family is a family in which a parent has children with more than one partner. Complex families are growing in Maryland’s child support caseload. These families include non-custodial parents with multiple support orders and parents who are custodians and non-custodians. To better serve and understand them, Maryland studies the characteristics of complex families; their demographics, economic resources, and child support characteristics and outcomes; and the impact of child support paid or received on parents’ earnings. States and agencies may want to consider policies that will positively impact these parents’ ability to support their families.
MDHS v. Reaves (Mississippi 2022)
A child support payment vests in the child, and once paid, is not reimbursable. The father was ordered to pay child support in the divorce decree. The father filed to modify custody, and child support was addressed in several orders throughout this proceeding. The final order addressing child support found the father was entitled to reimbursement by the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS) for overpaid support. MDHS appealed. The appellate court reversed the order to reimburse. Mississippi case law is settled that child support is for the benefit of the child and vests in child. Past-due payments can’t be modified or forgiven. A non-custodial parent isn’t entitled to reimbursement for vested payments paid pursuant to a valid court order. A trial court does have discretion to give the paying parent credit for the overpayment against support owed. The appellate court remanded this case for a determination of whether the father should receive such credit.
Taylor v. Taylor (Tennessee 2022)
An order must contain findings of fact to support an upward deviation for extraordinary educational expenses. This award is in addition to presumptive support. The parents had two children. The father’s original support order included an upward deviation for private school tuition. The parties filed numerous post-divorce motions. In the latest action, following a bench trial, the trial court modified support. The final order was then amended. The support amount in the amended order differed from the support amount in attached worksheet, and the father was ordered to “pay per pay period.” The father appealed. The appellate court affirmed in part and remanded in part. The deviation itself was not an abuse of discretion. Evidence showed the children were doing well in private school and the father agreed they should stay there. However, the order contained no proof of the average of the children’s tuition and expenses, and the child support amount should be consistent in the order and on the worksheet. The appellate court remanded for the trial court to calculate the monthly amount of support and then the amount for the upward deviation, which are to be added together.
States Should Use New Guidance to Stop Charging Parents for Foster Care, Prioritize Family Reunification
The federal Administration for Children & Families recently issued new policy guidance that allows state agencies to stop referring Title IV-E foster care cases for the establishment of a child support order. The old policy had very little benefit. These families are low-income. A support obligation takes money out of an already financially fragile family. Collecting support wasn’t cost-efficient. The new guidance promotes reunification efforts and help the custodial parent maintain the family home. Most states may need to develop a clear non-referral policy, reprogram computer systems, provide training, put quality control mechanisms in place, and encourage coordination between child welfare and child support.
Green v. Green (Mississippi 2022)
When a parent’s annual adjusted gross income exceeds $100,000, Mississippi statute requires findings as to whether an application of the guidelines is reasonable. The parents, who had two children, filed for divorce. The father’s adjusted gross income exceeded $100,000. To set support, the chancery court followed the Mississippi child support guidelines, which set support for two children at twenty percent of the parent’s adjusted gross income. The mother appealed several terms of the order including the child support calculation. She argued the support amount wasn’t sufficient. The appellate court remanded the child support portion of the order for further findings. The appellate court didn’t find an abuse of discretion in the method of setting support necessarily, but it found the order lacked the findings required when a parent has an adjusted gross income of more than $100,000. The order was remanded for the required written finding as to the reasonableness of using the guidelines to set support.
Ponder v. Ponder (Mississippi 2022)
An upward modification can be retroactive to the date of the event justifying the upward modification. When the parents divorced, they had joint physical and legal custody of the child, and no support was ordered. The decree was later modified to grant the mother physical custody of the child. The order stayed entry of a child support order for 90 days. He was to find employment during that time or notify the mother of his failure to find employment so she could take the next action. The father never provided the information. Eighteen months later, the mother filed to modify support. The chancery court granted her petition and made support retroactive to the end of the ninety-day period. The father appealed. The appellate court affirmed the order of retroactive support. Mississippi statute clearly allows a retroactive modification in these circumstances. The language of the order indicated the father would begin paying support at the end of the 90-day stay. The father also argued the mother wasn’t entitled to retroactive support because she didn’t plead for it. Mississippi statutes doesn’t require a specific request for a retroactive modification.
In re Parentage of C.R. (Kansas 2022)
When faced with competing paternity presumptions, the court must decide which presumption is based on weightier considerations of policy and logic. This child had two potential legal fathers, P.R. and J.P. P.R. agreed to have his name on the child’s birth certificate, knowing that he wasn’t the child’s biological father. J.P. was the child’s biological father. An initial paternity order named P.R. the child’s legal father. Several years later, J.P. filed to intervene claiming he hadn’t received notice of the initial paternity action. The trial court set aside the initial paternity order and declared J.P. the child’s legal father. P.R. appealed. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The trial court properly set aside its initial paternity order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parents knew J.P. was the child’s biological father and he should have been made a party to the action. Therefore, the order was void. The appellate court agreed both fathers were presumptive fathers. The trial court didn’t apply the correct legal standard to the competing presumptions. In finding J.P. the child’s legal father, the trial court assumed the initial paternity order was valid, which it wasn’t. Instead, the trial court should have determined which presumption was weightier based on considerations of policy and logic, including the best interests of the child.
Applying Human-Centered Design to Human Services: Pilot Study Findings
Human-Centered Design (HCD) is way of developing solutions to service delivery challenges with the end-user in mind. The Administration for Children and Families recently studies the application of HCD principles to its human services programs. The Washington State Division of Child Support was one of three pilot sites. Washington wanted to apply HCD to improve its modification request process. Key findings from the pilot study included: HCD can be evaluated in a human services program; with training and coaching, HCD-informed programs can be implemented to address a variety of issues; design team members displayed an HCD mindset early in the process; the teams showed their mindset through the strategies they chose to implement and their plan to sustain the strategies; and HCD was useful to address the chosen challenges.
Marriage of DePumpo (Colorado 2022)
Unrealized gains on an investment portfolio don’t meet the definition for child support income. However, equitable principles may apply. The definition of income includes income from rent. Depreciation can only be included if it is found to be an ordinary and necessary business expense, as defined in the child support statute. The parties filed for divorce. Specific to child support, the trial court calculated the mother’s income using her monthly salary and included an amount for unrealized monthly gains from an investment account. The trial court included depreciation expenses associated with rental properties in the father’s income. The mother appealed the final order, arguing the incomes were not correct. The appellate court agreed and reversed and remanded. In this issue of first impression, the appellate court found unrealized capital gains are not income for child support or maintenance. They are not included in the statutory definition of income. Until realized, a gain isn’t immediately available to a parent to pay expenses. The record contained no evidence to show the parents had used this account for income. However, the appellate court recognized there may be an equitable argument. Some parents may use an investment account can’t be used to shield money. The appellate court reversed the determination of the mother’s income for more findings on the earning-potential of the investment account. The husband received the parties’ rental properties, and the trial court included depreciation, as an ordinary and necessary business expenses, in his income determination. The definition of income for child support includes rental income, which is gross receipts less ordinary and necessary business expenses, which can include depreciation. The appellate court found more findings were necessary to understand why the trial court considered depreciation as an ordinary and necessary expense.
