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.
Promising Innovations and Pilots in the Child Support Field
The design of the child support program fails parents who are willing but unable to pay support. Several states have implemented innovative programs designed to address this issue. Highlighted programs include the San Francisco Child Support Debt Relief Pilot, Behavioral Interventions for Child Support Services – Texas Start Smart, Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED) Evaluation, Colorado’s Department of Human Services’ Division of Child Support Service Two-Generation Approach, and the Families Forward Demonstration Grant. These programs were centered around several themes: realistic support orders for paying parents, consistent support payments for custodial parents, access to job services, and debt avoidance.
Parental Resp Conc ACB (Colorado 2022)
Due Process requires appointment of counsel for indigent parents when a governmental agency initiates a contempt proceeding and jail is a possible remedy. The child support office filed a contempt proceeding against the father. The petition sought a jail term for the father, which would be suspended based on payment of child support. Throughout the proceeding, the father notified the court he had no ability to pay support and requested appointed counsel. The trial court denied his request and found him in contempt. The father appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded. Under the holding of Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011), appointment of counsel in civil contempt proceedings isn’t a right as long as procedural safeguards protect the parent’s due process rights. The appellate court found no procedural safeguards existed in this case. The father had no ability to explain his financial situation using a form. The agency had an attorney to make its prima facie case. Once the burden shifted to the father, he was on his own even though he could be sentenced to jail. He presented no evidence and called no witnesses. An attorney could have assisted him with his defense. On remand, the trial court must determine if the father is indigent and if proven, appoint counsel.
Barus v. Coffey (North Carolina 2022)
A motion to modify child support is sufficient if it contains allegations in line with statutory requirements for a presumptive modification. The trial court dismissed the father’s motion to modify child support for failure to state a claim finding the motion didn’t provide the mother with sufficient notice. The father appealed and the appellate court reversed and remanded. The father filed the modification using an approved form, which was filled out in its entirety. He alleged the order was more than three years old and a support would change by 15%. The appellate court found these allegations met the statutory requirements for a presumption modification and didn’t need to be any more specific. The statute doesn’t require the father provide actual incomes or financial information in the initial pleading. The appellate court made it clear it wasn’t addressing if the father was entitled to a modification. This order only addressed the dismissal of the motion.
Characteristics of Custodial Parents and Their Children
Using data from a 2018 U.S. Census Bureau survey, this brief analyzes characteristics of parents and children who are receiving child support services and compares them to families who don’t use the program. As of April 2018, there were 12.9 million custodial parents in the nation. 7.9 million of these parents participated in the child support program. This brief includes information on the age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital status, employment status of these parents, as well as data on living arrangements and visitation for the child with the noncustodial parent.
Daniels v. Yasa (Kansas 2021)
The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed to modify a Missouri child support order. The father requested his support obligation be terminated due to his child’s failure to comply with the requirements to receive support after high school. He also requested reimbursement of his support paid from the time of the child’s high school graduation. The district court entered a judgment for medical and educational expenses, denied his request for reimbursement, and he appealed. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated, and remanded. The appellate court found the child had failed to strictly comply with the requirements under Missouri law for support after high school graduation. The father’s obligation to support the child ended at his date of graduation. Because the child wasn’t eligible for support after high school, the judgement entered against the father for medical and educational expenses was vacated. Missouri law does allow for a refund of support paid after emancipation. However, the failure to comply with the post-high school support requirement didn’t automatically amount to emancipation. The child emancipated once he was ineligible to enroll in college.
In re Stradtmann (Colorado 2021)
Under Colorado statute, child support can be retroactive to the date of the parent’s separation, the date of the filing of the petition, or the date of service on the responding parent, whichever date is later. The final decree in this divorce case ordered child support retroactive to February 2019, the date of the parent’s separation. The father appealed this provision arguing this date didn’t comply with the statutory requirements. The appellate court agreed and the mother conceded. The mother was served in March. The appellate court vacated the term of the order awarding support prior to the date of service on the mother.
Bailey v. Bailey (Nebraska 2021)
A court may require security for child support payments if compelling circumstances exist. In this divorce action, the final decree ordered the father to secure his child support obligation with a life insurance policy and divided childcare expenses between the parents in order for the mother to maintain her job or pursue a higher education. The father appealed these provisions. The appellate court reversed. Ordering security for a child support obligation is an extreme measure. Nothing in the record indicated the father would fail to pay his child support. He was employed and didn’t have significant debt or an expensive lifestyle. The appellate court found it error to allocate day care costs for the benefit of only one parent. The appellate court struck the provision for security for support and modified the order to divide day care expenses between the parents.
Patterson v. Patterson (Nebraska 2021)
When projecting income for child support, evidence must support the projection. In this divorce action, the father was a dentist. To determine his income for child support, the district court averaged his income from 2017, 2018, and for six months of 2020. The parents’ 2019 tax return was not complete at the time of trial. Using the average income, the district court set support. The mother appealed arguing the district court erred both the method and calculation of the father’s income. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the decision to average the father’s income but found the calculation was error. To determine his income for 2020, the district court used six months of earnings. No evidence indicated this would be his entire income for the year. The appellate court remanded the case for a new child support calculation and laid out several options.
Who is Not Paying Child Support?
The reasons behind noncompliance with a child support order are many and varied. This report updates existing research on the reasons for nonpayment of current support using a data sample drawn from 21 counties in Wisconsin. The report considers how changes in the order amount, employment status, and incarceration negatively affect a parent’s ability to pay support. The tools available to enforce child support orders, such as income withholding and the receipt of information from new hire reporting, won’t be effective for these parents. Other services will be necessary to help them meet their obligations.
Peck v. Peck (Nebraska 2021)
Earning capacity can be used to determine income instead of a parent’s actual income. To get credit for health insurance premiums, a parent must provide proof of the cost. The mother appealed the final order in a proceeding to modify custody and support. She appealed several provisions including the child support calculation, arguing the court incorrectly used her earning capacity as her income and granted the father credit for contributing to the children’s health insurance premium. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The lower court correctly used the mother’s earning capacity to set her income. She had worked prior to choosing to stay at home with the children. She was currently in school and by her testimony planned to work again. It was not speculative to use her earning capacity as her income for child support. The lower court abused its discretion in giving the father a credit for payments toward the children’s health insurance as part of its equitable power. The statute clearly states the parent must provide proof of the cost of coverage, which the father didn’t provide.
