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.
Noncustodial Parents and the GIG Economy
Collecting child support from parents who work in the gig economy is difficult, and the number of parents working in the gig economy is increasing. This brief uses Census Bureau information to define the gig workforce and the number of noncustodial parents who are working in the gig economy. Four work arrangements are associated with the gig work: independent contractors, on-call workers, temporary agency workers, and working for a contract company. Gig work is usually temporary and not set-up as a traditional employer/employee relationship, making the enforcement of child support orders hard.
McLane v. Goodwin-McLane (North Carolina 2022)
An artificial insemination contract is valid as long as there is proper consideration. This case involves three people, a sperm donor, the recipient, and the other parent, plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the recipient, a same-sex couple, married and decided to have a child. The donor agreed to donate sperm. After the recipient became pregnant, the donor, the recipient, and the plaintiff, entered into a contract drafted by the donor. The parents separated after the child’s birth. The donor filed a legitimization action. The plaintiff filed a breach of contract action against the donor and the recipient, alleging donor had given up his right to raise the child as part of the contract. The trial court found the donor in breach of contract. The donor appealed, arguing the plaintiff had no rights under the contract. The appellate court affirmed. The contract specifically mentioned plaintiff, stated the child would be considered as born of the parents’ marriage, and plaintiff signed it. As such, plaintiff standing to file the breach of contract action. The contract wasn’t void as against public policy. The contract was signed after the pregnancy, which wasn’t ideal. But, the contract still required the parties to give up rights – the donor gave up the right to parent the child and the parents gave up the right to seek support. This was proper consideration.
Hehn v. Johnson (Wyoming 2022)
Even in default child support hearings, the district court has an obligation to determine income for both parents. The mother filed for paternity and support. The father was served, but failed to answer, and the clerk entered default. Both parents appeared at the hearing. The father was awaiting sentencing on a criminal charge, so a temporary order was entered. Upon the father’s release, the mother requested a default hearing. Both parents appeared. The district court took no evidence. The final order granted mother custody, set out visitation, and ordered child support based on the mother’s calculation. The mother appealed. Specific to child support, the Supreme Court acknowledged the awkwardness of mother’s appeal. The district court granted her requested relief. However, in default situations, the district court has an obligation to determine income for both parents. The district court made no such effort in this case. The court didn’t require financial affidavits from either parent. The father was present at hearings, but not asked about his income. The case was reversed and remanded for additional proceedings.
Smith v. Grant (North Carolina 2022)
A child support order can’t be based on speculation. The parents appeared before the court to determine custody and child support for their child. Prior to hearing, the parents agreed on a joint legal custody and a visitation schedule but the trial court determined child support. The final order granted the mother primary physical custody of the child and calculated child support using Worksheet A, which is based on one parent having less than 123 night of visitation per year. The father appealed, arguing the use of Worksheet A was incorrect. The appellate court reversed and remanded. The trial court improperly speculated the amount of parenting time the father would exercise. The trial court used evidence of the father’s past visitation with the child, which didn’t amount to a full year.
Wallace v. Wallace (Mississippi 2022)
Parents can’t unilaterally modify child support. The parents divorced in 2011, and the final divorce decree set out their visitation schedule and ordered the father to pay support. With time, the children alternated weeks with each parent. The father stopped paying support in 2017. In 2019, the mother filed to modify custody, support, for a finding of contempt for the father’s failure to pay support, and sought relief for other issues. In its final order, the chancery court awarded the mother back support from July 2017 – April 2019 but didn’t find the father in contempt. The father appealed. The appellate court upheld the child support terms of the order. The father admitted he didn’t pay support during this time, arguing he and the mother agreed to modify their custody arrangement. However, their marital dissolution agreement clearly stated any change to child support must have court approval. The appellate court found in light of the applicable law and circumstances, the chancellor’s decision to award past-due support but not hold the father in contempt was not error.
Morris v. Morris (North Carolina)
The prohibition against retroactive modifications doesn’t come into play if the child support order is temporary. In 2014, the parents filed for divorce and, in 2015, the court entered a temporary support order for the father to pay support, which it then suspended in a 2016 order. In 2020, the court entered a final order and calculated the father’s child support starting in 2016. The father appealed the final order, arguing the 2016 order suspending support became a permanent order by virtue of its duration and it was error to set support back to 2016. The appellate court upheld the order. It determined the 2016 order was temporary order, even though it was in place for a long time. Its language indicated it was meant to be temporary and that the issue of support would be revisited. The Father argued support couldn’t start any earlier than 2018, when he asked the court to modify support. The appellate court disagreed. Because the order was temporary, the start date for support didn’t have to comply with the requirements for starting a modified obligation.
In re Marriage of Clark (Kansas 2022)
Any modification to a child support order must be court approved. In 2002, the father filed for divorce. The trial court entered a temporary order requiring the father to pay support and maintenance and the mother to pay the mortgage on the marital residence. A divorce decree was entered later in 2002, but it reserved the issues of support and maintenance. In the interim, the father paid the mortgage, but didn’t pay support or maintenance. The mother requested a hearing, which the court denied. In 2020, the court entered a final journal entry. By this time, the children had emancipated. The order offset the support owed against the mortgage payments. The mother appealed. The appellate court reversed. The record didn’t support the existence of a clear agreement between the parents to substitute the mortgage payments for support and maintenance. Had the trial court held a hearing as the mother requested, it would have been able to take evidence as to the existence and terms of an agreement. On top of this, parents can’t unilaterally change a court-ordered child support obligation. Set off is an equitable remedy. The appellate court suggested the trial court might want to revisit the set off in light of the presented evidence.
Procedural Justice in the Child Support Process An Implementation Guide
Using lessons learned during the Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC) grant, this guide provides child support agencies detailed instructions on how to implement procedural justice-informed practices. The PJAC grant funded projects designed to improve outcomes for parents who were on the verge of a contempt referral using the principles of procedural justice. The grant later expanded to study projects on other stages of the child support process. This guide describes the foundational principles of procedural justice, gives tips and tricks for planning a project, and provides examples of projects from the grant sites. The document includes samples of materials including call scripts, assessments, brochures, and planning and implementation documents.
Procedural Justice in the Child Support Process Lessons from an Implementation Study of the Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt Demonstration
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement funded the Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC) grant to fund projects which implemented the principles of procedural justice in working with parents facing contempt. This report analyzes implementation of the PJAC model. The model includes a case review, outreach and engagement, case conference, case action plan, and case management. The research showed child support employees felt the model was beneficial to parents, although it wasn’t without its challenges. Engaging the parents was difficult. Case managers were limited in the services they could offer.
Reconciling Remote Learning with Imputed Income for Custodial Parents
Imputing income to custodial parents has become an issue during the pandemic. Many custodial parents left their jobs to care for children who were learning remotely. The author argues courts shouldn’t impute income under these circumstances. Instead, courts should exercise discretion and deviate from the guidelines or apply a good faith-best interests standard. Under this standard, income isn’t imputed to the custodial parents if the parent left his or her job in good faith, which is an issue of intent. State legislatures and judicial committees should consider revised child support guidelines to include the good faith-best interests standard.
