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.
State of Tennessee ex rel. Kimberly C. v. Gordon S. (Tennessee 2020)
A voluntary acknowledgement of paternity (VAP) is a legal finding of paternity but can be set aside for material mistake of fact. The burden of proof is on the parent challenging the VAP. The father signed a VAP knowing that he was not the child’s biological parent. The parents broke up, and the State filed to establish support. The father filed to dismiss the petition, arguing that there was a material mistake of fact and he requested genetic testing. The juvenile court denied the request for genetic testing, declined to set aside the VAP, and ordered support. The father appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order. The VAP wasn’t rescinded in the statutory timeframe. The father argued his material mistake of fact was that he didn’t understand the consequences of signing a VAP. The appellate court found the VAP form clearly outlined the responsibilities of a legal father, including the obligation to financially support the child. The father also argued that making a non-biological parent pay support is against public policy. The court found no merit in this argument. Holding a legal father, who voluntarily signed a VAP knowing he wasn’t the child’s biological father, to his obligation to support a child doesn’t violate public policy.
In re Humphries (Kansas 2020)
The requirement that a parent pay unreimbursed medical expenses is not self-executing. A court must order it. In the initial order, the father was ordered to pay half of the child’s unreimbursed medical expenses. In post-divorce litigation, a judgment was entered against the father for these expenses. The father appealed the order arguing the imposition of the judgment violated his due process rights. The appellate court upheld the award. The initial support order made the father responsible for half the unreimbursed medical expenses. Subsequent support orders made no mention of medical expenses. Therefore, this obligation stood. Only a specific court order could relieve him of his obligation and none of the subsequent orders had done so.
Gandara-Moore v. Moore (Nebraska 2020)
A court may use a parent’s earning capacity instead of actual income to determine child support when a parent voluntarily leaves a job. The parents filed for divorce. The trial court used mother’s earning capacity to calculate support instead of her actual income. Her actual income source was unemployment benefits. The mother appealed the child support calculation as well as other provisions of the final decree. The appellate court upheld the determination of mother’s income but found the trial court improperly gave the father credit for health insurance. The evidence showed mother voluntarily left her job and it would not be equitable to use the amount of her unemployment benefits as her income. The mother argued a car accident prevented her from working but the appellate court noted she left her job before she had the car accident. The appellate court agreed that the district court erred in giving the father credit for a health insurance deduction. He didn’t provide adequate proof of the cost of the insurance for himself and the children. The court recalculated support and modified the decree accordingly.
Kelly v. Kelly (Nebraska 2020)
Parents may be responsible for reasonable and necessary expenses on top of the monthly child support award. The final divorce decree ordered the father to pay monthly support and a percentage of the children’s private school tuition, extracurricular activities, and other miscellaneous expenses like school lunch and clothing. The father appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed the order in part and vacated in part. The parents were awarded joint physical custody, which meant a lower support obligation that to account for the relatively equal amount of time the children would spend with both parents. The father’s monthly income far exceeded the mother’s. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in ordering the father to pay a portion of tuition and extracurricular activities. The court noted an interest in the children not having to change schools and that both parents had to agree about extracurricular activities. The court vacated the portion of the order regarding miscellaneous expenses such as school lunch, haircuts, and clothing. The monthly child support amount is intended to cover these types of expenses.
Marquis v. Marquis (Wyoming 2020)
Evidence must support a parent’s request to exclude business expenses from net income. The parent seeking to deduct the business expense has the burden of proof. The father filed to modify custody, visitation, and support, and the mother responded with a petition to modify support. The parents settled all matters except support. They agreed to submit written arguments and their proposed calculations and supporting documents to the district court to consider without the need for a hearing. The father owned his own business. To calculate his income, the district court added his personal and business income and then deducted income taxes and depreciation for three years. (more…)
Henson v. Carosella (Nebraska 2020)
Child support should be based on parent’s current earnings. The father appealed the child support provision of the final divorce decree. He argued the court’s determination of his income ignored evidence of his actual earnings. The father, an apprentice steamfitter, was about to be qualified as a journeyman. He worked more than 40 hours per week regularly. The court of appeals upheld the child support award.
State ex rel. Gray v. Daugherty (Tennessee 2020)
A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be supported with evidence at trial. The State filed a motion for relief from an arrears judgment alleging that the father had been given credit for a payment made to the mother by an NCP on a different case. At the hearing, the State argued in support of its motion but didn’t put on any evidence. The trial court granted the State’s motion and amended the judgement amount. The father appealed arguing that the State failed to prove its motion.
Sekik v. Abdelnabi (Tennessee 2020)
When evidence supports the determination of a parent’s income, it will not be overturned as an abuse of discretion. In this divorce case, the trial court initially set support in a temporary parenting plan entered in 2012. At the time, the parents had four minor children. In the final decree, entered in 2019, the trial court set support for the two youngest children. The father appealed the child support order as well as other terms. Specific to child support, he argued that the court had no evidence of either party’s earning capacity, and should have imputed the minimum income specified in the guidelines to both parents. The appellate court upheld the child support order.
Benjamin M. v. Jeri S. (Nebraska 2020)
An unrescinded and unchallenged acknowledgement of paternity is a legal finding of parentage. The parents had two children, and the father has signed an acknowledgement of paternity immediately following the birth of both children. Years later, the father filed to establish paternity, custody, support, and parenting time. He subsequently amended the complaint to take out his plea for paternity. The amended complaint explained that paternity was not at issue. He had signed acknowledgements for both children. The mother moved to dismiss, arguing that his filing was outside the statute of limitations to establish paternity.
In re MF (Kansas 2020)
A same-sex partner, who didn’t give birth to a child, can be recognized as a parent using K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-2208(a)(4) when the child’s birth parent consented to shared parenting at the time of the child’s birth. This case came before the Supreme Court on appeal from lower court decisions denying a same-sex partner parentage rights because there was no enforceable oral parenting contract between the partners. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts.
