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.
Yeutter v. Barber (Nebraska 2021)
Incarceration doesn’t completely relieve a parent from paying child support. The parents had one child and under their paternity decree, the father didn’t pay support. The father filed to modify custody, and the mother crossclaimed for a modification of custody and child support. By the time of the trial, the father was incarcerated. The trial court granted the mother’s request for current and retroactive support. The father appealed the final order. Specific to child support, he argued his incarceration should relieve him of the obligation to pay support. The appellate court upheld the support provision of the final order. The appellate court noted caselaw clearly supports a parent’s obligation to pay some support even when incarcerated. The father failed to include the underlying order in the record on appeal so the appellate court declined to address any argument as to a material change from the initial order.
In re Estate of Yudkin (Colorado 2021)
A common law marriage may be established by the mutual consent or agreement of the couple to enter the legal and social institution of marriage, followed by conduct that supports this agreement. All the circumstances must be considered to find the agreement. In this probate case, the husband died intestate. His ex-wife petitioned to be the personal representative of his estate. His “wife” sought removal of the ex-wife and appointment as the personal representative as his common law wife. The district court found no marriage existed under the test in place, and the common law wife appealed. The appellate court reversed, and the ex-wife petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court announced the new test for common law marriage. The new test requires a mutual consent or agreement that the parties are married and looks at all factors that prove the agreement, or lack of agreement, to be married. This case was remanded to determine if the parties intended a marital relationship.
In re Marriage of LaFleur and Pyfer (Colorado 2021)
The recognition of the right for same-sex couples to marry in Colorado didn’t preclude couples from entering into common law marriages prior to that date. In 2003, Pyfer and LaFleur, a same-sex couple, exchanged rings and held a ceremony acknowledging their commitment. In 2018, Pyfer filed for dissolution of marriage. LaFleur argued they were not married as same-sex marriage wasn’t recognized in Colorado until 2014. Evidence showed that Pyfer had proposed to LaFleur and the men held a ceremony. Pyfer held himself out as married and listed LaFleur as his spouse on legal documents. Based on this evidence, the district court found the parties entered into a common law marriage and divided their assets accordingly. Pyfer appealed the property division, and LaFleur appealed the determination of a valid marriage. The Supreme Court accepted review of this case and affirmed the decision that the parties entered into a common law marriage. In 2014, the United States Supreme Court recognized same-sex couples fundamental right to marry. This made any state law restrictions on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Once a state law is declared unconstitutional, it is treated as if it never existed, and with that, state law was no longer a barrier to recognizing a same-sex marriage. The evidence supported the parties’ intent to enter into a marriage and the fact that it before Colorado recognized the right to marry didn’t matter.
In re Marriage of Hogsett and Neale (Colorado 2021)
A common law marriage may be established by the mutual consent or agreement of the couple to enter the legal and social institution of marriage, followed by conduct that supports this agreement. The court must consider all relevant factors to determine if the parties had an agreement. The same-sex parties in this case were in a relationship from November 2011 to November 2014. They never married even after that became an option in October 2014. The parties separated and filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. They mediated their issues and dismissed the petition without the need for a determination as to their marital status. Later, Hogsett sought retirement assets and maintenance. Neale objected, arguing the parties were not married. Hogsett filed a second petition for dissolution stating that the parties were married at common law. The district court had to determine the parties’ marital status. Evidence in favor of a marriage included the purchase of a home and many joint assets. Evidence to the contrary included that the parties didn’t attempt to marry and that Neale testified she had no intention of marrying. Applying the test in place, the district court found that Hogsett failed to meet her burden to establish a common law marriage and dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed and announced an updated test for a common law marriage that more accurately reflects current societal norms. The current test used gendered terms and contained outdated factors such as giving weight to the parties use of the same last name. The new test is based on the parties mutual agreement to enter into a marital relationship. A wide variety of factors should be considered. The Court applied the new test to uphold the lower courts’ determinations that these parties did not mutually agree that they were married.
Bishop v. Bishop (North Carolina 2020)
A child’s reasonable needs are based upon the ability of the parents to provide. Trial courts have wide discretion when determining needs and can consider the parent’s lifestyle and standard of living. The mother filed to modify the divorce decree based on the father’s increased income. His income came from many sources: base salary, bonuses, and stock. The final order increased support and adjusted the percentages for unreimbursed medical expenses. The father appealed. He argued the amount of child support exceeded the child’s reasonable needs and that his income had actually decreased. The appellate court affirmed the order. To determine the child’s needs, the trial court correctly considered both parents lifestyles and the disparity in their incomes. The issue is the child’s needs, not the parent’s ability to pay. The father argued his income had decreased since entry of the original order. The original decree made findings about his increases in income in the years before the divorce but didn’t specifically set out a monthly income amount. He urged the appellate court to review the original income calculation to determine a specific monthly amount. The appellate court noted the original decree wasn’t appealed, and the order contained a specific enough finding with respect to his monthly income. Using that figure, his monthly increase had clearly increased.
Procedural Justice Principles in the Midst of a Major Disruption
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) funded the Procedural Justice Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC) grant to explore the application of procedural justice principles to enforcing child support orders. The grant targets noncustodial parents who are about to be referred for contempt for not paying their child support but have the ability to pay. This brief addresses the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the project sites and the parents. Relationship building is essential to providing services informed by procedural justice principles. These agencies had already built relationships with many of parents so they were in a good place when the pandemic hit. The agencies and parents both had issues with technology. Modification are important for PJAC parents. When courts closed, scheduling modification hearings became difficult. Procedural Justice principles have helped the agencies as the they communicate with parents about current processes and issues like the stimulus payment.
In re the Parental Responsibilities Concerning M.E.R. and D.E.R.-L (Colorado 2020)
The Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA) does not prohibit the inclusion of a parent’s veteran’s disability benefits as income for child support. The father filed a proceeding to allocate parental responsibilities for his two children. With respect to child support, the father’s income consisted of military retirement and veteran’s benefits. The trial court included both sources in the father’s gross income and set child support. The father appealed, arguing the veteran’s benefits shouldn’t haven’t been included in his income because the veteran’s disability benefits are not insurance benefits, aren’t taxable, and federal law prohibits the inclusion. The court of appeals upheld the child support order. The court noted the broad statutory definition of income and that the statute didn’t specifically exclude veteran’s benefits. The nontaxable nature of the benefits made no difference as to their status as income for child support. Finally, the court found no language in USFSPA that prohibited including veteran’s benefits as income for child support. Caselaw in many other states support this interpretation of USFSPA.
Baxter v. Rowan (Tennessee 2020)
A valid paternity acknowledgement is the equivalent of a paternity order and grants a parent standing to sue for visitation. The father signed a paternity acknowledgement and several years later filed for visitation. The trial court granted the visitation. The mother appealed the final order for several reasons. Relevant to child support, she argued the father didn’t have standing to sue for visitation because the paternity acknowledgement was not a final parentage order. The court of appeals found the father had standing. A valid paternity acknowledgement is the equivalent of a paternity order and affords the father standing in bring a suit. The statute clearly stated that unless rescinded, an acknowledgement is conclusive of paternity without further court order.
Angel v. Sandoval (North Carolina 2020)
If a parent is voluntarily underemployed, a court can use the parent’s earning capacity as income for child support. The mother filed to modify child support based on the father’s increase in income. The mother was not working, and the court set her income at zero. The final order substantially increased the father’s support. The father appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to impute income to the mother at her earning capacity rather than her actual income. The appellate court upheld the order. The record didn’t reflect any evidence of bad faith on the mother’s part. The record reflected her ability to work but her reasons for staying at home were sound. She testified that the children’s performance in school improved and she could better participate in their activities.
Sanchez v. Sanchez (Nebraska 2020)
If a parent earns or reasonably expects to earn overtime, the overtime income should be included in the parent’s income for child support. If the income is speculative, then it can be excluded. The mother, who paid support, filed to modify the parenting time and child support terms of the divorce decree due to a change in her work schedule. The mother worked as a corrections officer and earned significant overtime. According to mother, some overtime was mandatory, due to staffing shortages, and other overtime was voluntary. Both parents submitted proposed child support worksheets. The father’s calculation included the overtime income. The mother’s didn’t. The district court adopted the father’s worksheet and increased child support. The mother appealed, arguing that due to her new work schedule she would not be working as much overtime. The appellate court affirmed. The record contained evidence of the mother’s increased income and regular overtime pay. The record contained no evidence that fewer overtime hours would be available to the mother. The mother didn’t provide a recent paystub to reflect current overtime hours. At the time of trial, the change in income had not lasted for 3 months, and she didn’t establish that the change would continue into the future.
