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.
Britt and Wake County Human Services, Child Support Enf., Intervenor, v. Britt (North Carolina 2022)
A parent must provide the requisite proof in order for business expenses deducted from gross income. The parents filed for divorce. The father was self-employed and owned rental properties. During the trial, the father provided testimony as to his income, bank accounts, deposits into the bank accounts, and current work situation In weighing the evidence to determine the father’s income for child support, the trial court found the father’s testimony evasive and unreliable. The trial court used evidence of monthly deposits into his bank accounts to set his income and calculated support according to the guidelines. The father appealed, arguing the court gave him no credit for business expenses and should have deducted his temporary support and equitable distribution payment from his monthly gross income. The appellate court affirmed the decision. The language of the final order supported the trial court’s calculation of the father’s income. He failed to offer evidence of business expenses, including pest control expenses and mortgage interest. The appellate court found no merit, or authority, for the father’s argument that his temporary support and equitable distribution payments should be deducted from his gross income. The child support guidelines set out appropriate deductions and neither temporary support or equitable distribution payments are listed.
Nakauchi v. Cowart (Colorado 2022)
Due process requires parents in direct pay cases receive advance notice of the entry of an income withholding order (IWO) for future child support payments. The mother, who paid her child support directly, filed suit against the county for violating her right to due process when it sent her employer an IWO without notice. The trial court agreed and entered a state-wide injunction requiring notice to obligors concurrently with the entry of an IWO for future support. The Mother appealed, arguing concurrent notice was inadequate to protect her rights. The County also appealed, arguing the injunction was unnecessary. The Appellate Court found the failure to give the mother notice violated her right to due process. Further, the injunction didn’t provide the appropriate relief. The Appellate Court found notice was required prior to the entry of the income withholding order, not concurrently. The entry of an IWO implicates a person’s right to due process. A parent has an interest in the receipt of wages. The issuance of an IWO without notice creates a risk of erroneous withholding, as in this case, where the mother, had, in fact, made her child support payment. Notice gives the parent an opportunity to correct mistakes. The Appellate Court recognized the possibility of a fiscal impact but found the benefits outweighed the cost. The County argued the case was moot because the notice policy had been changed. The Appellate Court was unpersuaded. The policy change lacked formality and only called for concurrent notice, not advance.
Carroll v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Family Services, Child Support Enforcement (Wyoming 2022)
To set aside an order, there must be unusual circumstances. The child support order at issue in this case was set in 2012. The father was ordered to pay $50 per month, the statutory minimum. The father challenged the statute setting the statutory minimum as unconstitutional several times but was unsuccessful. In the latest legal action, the District Court modified the support order to $0 and entered a judgment for his arrears. The District Court denied his motion to set aside the order. The father appealed, arguing the child support statute was unconstitutional because it created an irrebuttable statutory minimum child support order. The Supreme Court affirmed. To set aside an order, there must be unusual circumstances, and the father didn’t show any. The original order was entered in 2012, and he didn’t argue the unconstitutionality of the statute then. He didn’t appeal the 2012 order. The Supreme Court found he couldn’t use a motion to set aside as a substitute for an appeal of the underlying judgment.
Bossian v. Bossian (North Carolina 2022)
Parents can’t unilaterally modify child support orders. A parent is required to comply with the order even if it contains clerical errors. The father was found in contempt for failure to pay support. The final order included a purge payment and date for compliance. The mother filed a motion to correct clerical errors in the contempt order, and father filed a motion to for relief from the contempt order. The trial court granted the mother’s motion and denied the father’s motion. The trial court entered an arrest order but lowered the purge payment so the father could be quickly released. The father appealed the denial of his motion for relief, the granting of the mother’s motion, and the arrest order. The appellate court affirmed the orders. The father wasn’t deprived of due process when the trial court enforced the provisions of the order. The father was required to comply with the order regardless of clerical errors. Even though the child had lived with the father for some time, the parties never filed to modify child support. Unless the order is modified, the father’s failure to pay was willful.
Hollis v. Hollis (Tennessee 2022)
The definition of income is broad and all-encompassing. A reasonable necessity standard is applied to child support awards when the parents earn more than $10,000 per month. The parents of two special needs children filed for divorce. The husband, a financial advisor, was the primary source of income for the family. His income included a loan from his employer, which was tied to performance goals. The loan was forgiven as he met the goals. As his income exceeded $10,000 per month, the trial court had to consider the reasonable necessity standard when awarding support above the guidelines. In its final order, the trial court found support should be set above the guideline amount in light of the father’s income and the children’s extensive special needs. Both parents appealed the final order. The husband appealed the child support award, arguing the loan shouldn’t have been included as income and the trial court applied the wrong standard in making the upward deviation. The appellate court affirmed the child support award. The husband’s argument that the loan wasn’t part of his income had no merit. The trial court appropriately considered his actual income. The Court applied the correct standard to determine child support. The record contained overwhelming evidence as to the children’s special needs. The appellate court found the trial court applied the correct standard and that its decision was not illogical or unjust.
Robinson v. Robinson (Tennessee 2022)
To find a parent voluntarily unemployed, the court must consider the parent’s choices and the reasonableness of the choices considering a parent’s obligation to support the child. The parents filed for divorce. They owned three Subway stores. Pending the final order, the court ordered that the mother would manage the stores and the father was to find another job. The father failed to find a job, so when calculating child support, the trial court imputed income to him that equaled the income for a Subway store manager. The father appealed, arguing the trial court had to first find him voluntarily unemployed before imputing income. The appealed court affirmed. It was clear from the order language that he was voluntarily unemployed. The trial court ordered him to find employment, but he had not. He testified he had a master’s degree and the ability to manage a Subway franchise. The amount imputed income was appropriate considering his skills and education.
Kelley v. Zitzelberger (Mississippi 2022)
To modify a child support order, a parent must show a material change of circumstances that was unforeseen at the time of the original order. The father retired from the military and requested a modification of child support. The parents had orally agreed to reduce support and that the father would pay for certain expenses. The father wanted to offset the expenses with his arrears. The chancery court denied his request and entered a judgment for arrears. The appellate court affirmed. The father’s retirement didn’t justify a modification. He showed no proof that he couldn’t work and earn income similar to his active duty pay. The father and his new wife had expenses that clearly exceeded the father’s retirement income. While the chancery court couldn’t use the wife’ income to calculate support, it could consider her contribution to the household, which was significant. Any oral agreement between the parents to reduce support was unenforceable and the father couldn’t receive credit for expenses paid outside the court order.
Fox v. Ozkan (Kansas 2022)
The doctrine of acquiescence to a judgment applies when a parent complies with an income withholding order. A judgment for unreimbursed medical expenses was entered against the father. When the judgement was entered, an income withholding order was also put in place. After his motion for reconsideration was denied, he appealed. In the meantime, he satisfied the judgment. On appeal, the mother argued he had acquiesced to the judgment by paying it off. The court of appeals affirmed. The father, a pro se litigant, argued he had not voluntarily paid the judgment. He didn’t understand he could stop it. The court of appeals found no reason to treat him differently because he was pro se. He knew about the income withholding order and make no effort to have it stopped. The court distinguished payments made under a contempt order as being not voluntary.
Centering Child Well-Being in Child Support Policy
Child support policies should be designed to maximize child well-being. This brief, part of the Centering Child Well-Being in Child Support Policy series, examines policies to increase the child support that goes to families, remove barriers to payment, increase job retention, support father engagement, and encourage co-parenting. Without these types of policies in place, the child support program can impact families negatively. Paying parents end up with high debt and have a hard time playing a meaningful role in their child’s life.
Williams v. Wiley (North Carolina 2022)
A clerical error will not render a Notice of Registration of Foreign Support Order invalid. The parent claiming improper service must provide evidence of the defect. The Wake County child support office filed a Notice of Registration of Foreign Support Order, which was confirmed. The mother filed to dismiss the confirmation order, arguing the wrong person was served and she didn’t live at the address where the notice was mailed. The trial court denied her motion, and she appealed. The appellate court affirmed. The appellate court found the County had properly identified the mother’s last known mailing address and mailed the packet and pleadings to the address. At hearing, the mother didn’t give any evidence of another address and wouldn’t give her current physical address when asked. The original order inadvertently omitted an “e” from the end of the mother’s name, but the appellate court upheld the finding this was a clerical error and not evidence of service on the wrong person.
