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.
Lillard v. Lillard (Tennessee 2021)
Child support can continue for beyond the age of 21 for children who are severely disabled; living under parental supervision, which is in the child’s best interests; and the obligor has the financial ability to pay support. The mother petitioned the court to modify child support and declare the child severely disabled. At hearing, the mother testified as to the daughter’s IQ, diagnosis, and her inability to live independently. The daughter hadn’t been able to hold a job, relied on the mother for transportation, and couldn’t manage money. She feared other people and couldn’t remember to perform basic personal care. The father cited her graduation from high school, ability to perform basic household tasks, and competition of a certificate program as reasons to stop support. The district court granted the mother’s motion and set support. To set support, the court considered income from the daughter, mother, and the father. The father appealed. The appellate court upheld the order. The father argued the evidence didn’t show a severe disability, the final order lacked required findings, and the daughter was voluntarily underemployed. The mother and daughter’s testimony met the requirements for the definition of a severe disability. As for the required finding, the appellate court noted it was obvious the daughter lived with her mother, and the evidence supported this arrangement served her best interests. The appellate court also found the trial court used the proper amount of income for the daughter. The court relied on testimony from her current employer as to her skills and abilities.
Julie C.W. v. Frank Mitchell W. Jr. (Tennessee 2021)
The trial court has discretion over deviations from presumptive child support. In this divorce proceeding, there was a large income disparity. The father was an extremely high earner. The mother requested an upward deviation in child support. The final decree set support at the presumptive amount and ordered the mother to pay 10 percent of the uncovered medical. The decree acknowledged the father’s agreement to pay for the children’s private school tuition and up to $600 per month for extracurricular activities. The mother appealed. She argued the court abused its discretion in not granting an upward deviation in support. The appellate court found the evidence showed the trial court didn’t find the mother’s listing of expenses credible. It also found the court assigned the correct pro rata share of uncovered medical expenses to the mother. She stipulated to her earning potential and support and uncovered medical were set accordingly.
Civil Contempt of Court for Child Support Noncompliance at the PJAC Demonstration Sites
The federal Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC) demonstration project was a federally-funded project to study the effectiveness of using procedural justice methods to enforce child support orders. Civil contempt is a possible enforcement tool. This brief considers the application of procedural justice methods to the contempt process. Contempt is an enforcement tools of last resort and is historically adversarial. Several of the PJAC sites worked with the courts to soften the adversarial nature in an attempt to make the process feel fair and to ensure parents had their questions answered. In one area, contempt was filed but the proceeding could be continued without sentencing on the condition the parent seek outside services. Other projects used the principles when providing information and additional resources. The brief found that applying procedural justice principles to contempt may be challenging but is not impossible.
Mercer v. Chiarella (Tennessee 2021)
The court of appeals will not consider issues of first impression on appeal. The divorce decree ordered the father pay child support. He filed to modify based on a decrease in his income. The father’s main source of income was interest on loans he made to other people. As the principal balance of the loans decreased, so did the amount of interest the father received. The court entered an order modifying support down based on his 2019 income. The mother appealed, arguing the father was underemployed, his income for the last two years should have been averaged, and the court should have included in the father ‘s income an amount for the reasonable return on investment with respect to the father’s assets. The court of appeals upheld the order. The mother waived the issues of voluntary unemployment and averaging income because she had not brought them up during the underlying proceeding. She presented no evidence of the father’s assets. The court couldn’t have considered a reasonable rate of return without proof of his assets.
Negotiating Race and Racial Inequality in Family Court
This article explores the role of race in court proceedings to enforce a child support obligation. The researchers found courts fail to recognize the role of race in father’s ability to support his child. Black fathers are getting hit from all directions: by a labor market that discriminates against them and by a court system with unrealistic expectations. Fathers are required to pay their child support obligation. Many meet the obligation through wage withholding from their job. For Black fathers, racism in the labor market prevents them from finding and maintaining a job that allows them to pay support. Consequently, they end up in court for a contempt proceeding – many times with counsel and a judge who are both white. Remedies are race neutral, which makes things worse for the Black fathers. The fathers are often ordered into a program to help them find a job. Even in these programs, Black fathers have the same barriers to finding a steady job which will allow them to pay support regularly. The court’s failure to recognize these challenges perpetuates the systemic racism.
Brown v. Brown (Wyoming 2021)
Unless an order contains the required findings, a child support order is assumed to be presumptive support and only requires a change in amount for modification. The original divorce decree ordered the father to pay support. He later filed to modify the divorce decree. The final order modified support based on an increase in the support amount sufficient to meet the required twenty percent change. The father appealed. He argued modification of the order required a substantial change of circumstances above and beyond the change in amount since the original order was stipulated to and deviated from presumptive support. The Supreme Court affirmed the modified order. The original order failed to contain statutory requirements such as the amount of the parents’ incomes and contained no language about a deviation. Without additional language, the Supreme Court concluded the required change in amount was the only thing necessary to modify the order.
Kelly v. Kelly (Nebraska 2021)
Child support orders set under the guidelines are presumably correct. The divorce decree in this case ordered the father to pay child support. The amount included an upward deviation to account for the father’s share of expenses. The father was also ordered to provide health insurance. In 2018, The father lost his job, and the mother began providing health insurance. The mother filed to modify custody and support and the father counterclaimed. In the order for modification, specific to support, the trial court used the father’s proposed calculation to set support, which used the mother’s 2018 income rather than her current, actual income. The order discontinued the deviation and set out a detailed expense sharing plan. The trial court declined to give the mother retroactive credit for her provision of health insurance. The mother appealed. The appellate court reversed the child support amount and remanded for recalculation using the mother’s actual income. The appellate court affirmed the provisions regarding the retroactive support and the deviation. The higher amount of child support mother received balanced out her payment of the health insurance premiums. The trial court also didn’t abuse its discretion in discontinuing the upward deviation. Per the guidelines, the court included a specific plan for expense sharing.
Sears v. Sears (Wyoming 2021)
An award of retroactive support is subject to the court’s discretion. The parents filed for divorce, and the district court didn’t order child support during the pending action. The parents agreed to a custody arrangement during the pendency of the action. In the order accepting the arrangement, the court didn’t order support and noted the parents were sharing custody and splitting uncovered medical expenses. The father was also paying the children’s health insurance. The final divorce decree ordered the father to pay support going forward but didn’t award retroactive support. The mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the child support order. Mother argued the trial court didn’t specify the father’s payment of her bills was in lieu of child support. The Supreme Court found the mother’s argument relied on testimony and evidence from the bench trial, but she didn’t designate the bench trial transcript as part of the record. The Court also noted the mother filed a motion earlier in the proceeding that indicated the child support order in place at the time factored in the father’s payment of her car insurance and cell phone bill.
Baker v. Baker (Tennessee 2021)
The definition of income for child support doesn’t include alimony paid to a party in the proceeding. Military retired pay is marital property, subject to property distribution and is not income for child support. The parents in this case, who had two children, divorced. The father was active military but had plans to retire. In the final decree, the district court ordered the father to pay alimony until his retirement, at which time the mother would receive her share of the father’ s military retirement directly. The district court didn’t credit the father for either of these payments as part of his income for child support. The father appealed the final divorce decree arguing that the trial court should have credited him for the alimony, the retirement benefits, and health insurance premiums. The appellate court affirmed the income calculation. The guideline definition of income clearly states that alimony paid to a party to the proceeding is not included as income for child support. Under Tennessee caselaw, military retirement is marital property and subject to equitable division. It is not income for child support except to the extent it creates additional income after the division. The court noted this could be addressed through a later modification. The court also found parents should be given credit for actual amounts paid towards the children’s health insurance. However, if the parent’s employer pays the entire amount, as in this case, the parent won’t be given credit.
Mahlendorf v. Mahlendorf (Nebraska 2021)
A consent judgement is not subject to appellate review. The original divorce decree had been modified several times to reflect various changes. The first modification allowed the mother to move from Nebraska. The father was awarded a deviation in support to account for his travel costs to see the children in Tennessee. The parents modified the order a second time and carried the deviation for travel expenses forward. The mother filed to modify the decree a third time. The mother requested an increase in support due to higher incomes and the deviation be eliminated. After a day at trial, the parents asked the court to weigh in on the presented evidence. The judge indicated he was skeptical that the evidence would show a substantial change but made it clear that he hadn’t made a decision and wouldn’t until the evidence closed. The parents then negotiated a settlement agreement. Support increased but the deviation for travel continued. The court entered the order. The mother appealed arguing the father shouldn’t receive the travel cost deviation when the evidence showed he wasn’t exercising his visitation. The Supreme Court moved this appeal to its docket and affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court initially addressed the fact the order was a consent judgment. The order language indicated both parents were represented by counsel during the negotiation and the trial court entered the agreement at their request. The judgment contained no independent ruling on a disputed issue for the appellate court to review.
