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.
Marriage of Evans (Colorado 2021)
A property division can be re-opened upon the discovery of an undisclosed asset. Child support will be recalculated to reflect any change in a parent’s income from the new asset. In this post-divorce action, the mother petitioned to reopen the parents’ original property division. She found an undisclosed asset, the father’s ownership of a business. The magistrate agreed, allocated the asset, and modified the child support order based on additional income from the business. The father appealed, first to the district court, which affirmed, and then to the appellate court. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. First, the court found the property division was properly reopened. The father had an affirmative duty to disclose his ownership in the business. The appellate court reversed the child support determination and remanded for additional findings. While the district made some findings, the appellate court couldn’t tell how the findings led to the child support determination.
Braswell v. Braswell (Mississippi 2021)
The modification of a child support order requires an unforeseen change of circumstances. The requesting parent has the burden of proof. The father filed to modify the alimony and child support provisions of the divorce decree. He alleged his income from his ophthalmology practice had decreased substantially. He filed for bankruptcy and then the pandemic prevented him from seeing patients. He had been charged with driving under the influence and was subject to an agreement with the licensing board which also limited his hours of practice. The parent’s final minor child was living with the father at the time of the action. In the final order, the chancery court denied to modification finding the father’s choice to drink meant his claimed change in circumstances didn’t quality as unforeseen. He was found in contempt for failure to pay. The father appealed. The appellate court found the chancery court abused its discretion in denying the modification. Specific to child support, the parent’s last child had moved in with the father. His support obligation should have ended as of the date the child changed homes. As to the contempt finding, the appellate court found the father presented evidence of his inability to pay due to material, unforeseen circumstances. He offered his tax returns, and his current wife, in her capacity as his office manager, testified as to his business accounts. He depleted his assets to keep himself afloat and was not living above his means.
Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Nonresident Parents
More than 9.7 million parents in the United States don’t live with their children. Recognizing the important role nonresident parents play in their children’s life, policymakers requested data on nonresident parents and suggestions for beneficial policies. The data in this report, obtained from the 2018 Survey of Income and Program Participation, captured demographic, relationship, and economic information. The survey also asked the parents about their compliance with child support orders. Specific to child support, the data suggests that finding child support policies that balance a parent’s ability to pay and the parent’s ability to meet basic needs will be challenging but beneficial. The data also suggests that visitation and child support, while historically treated as separate issues, are intertwined and should be dealt with as such.
Webber v. Randle (Mississippi 2021)
An estate administrator has an obligation to determine the heirs and can challenge paternity. An estate administrator, the widow of the decedent, filed to determine heirship. The decedent had four children: two born during his first marriage, one with the widow, and a child for whom paternity had yet to be established. His widow, the administrator of his estate, filed to determine heirship. The chancery court ordered DNA testing of all four children. The results showed a high probability that the children of the ex-wife and the children of the widow were not related, which meant the decedent was not the biological father of the two children from his first marriage. In its final order, the chancery court found the two children of the first marriage were not heirs at law based on the DNA results. The chancery court provided the children could exhume the father’s body at their cost for additional DNA testing. The children of the first marriage appealed. The appellate court upheld the order. It found the current wife, as administrator of the estate, had a duty to explore all issues surround the estate, including contesting the paternity of possible heirs. While the paternity of the children born of his first marriage was presumed, the presumption was rebuttable. The DNA evidence properly rebutted the presumption. The chancery court didn’t abuse its discretion in comparing the DNA results to get to this result and in not ordering exhumation of the father’s body.
Integrating Procedural Justice Principles into Child Support Case Management
The Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt Demonstration (PJAC) grant studied the effect of applying the principles of procedural justice to child support cases in which a non-paying parents qualified for a contempt action. This brief sets out information gained from the grant case managers about their experience working with the parents. Implementation of this model required a rethinking of the provision of child support services. The case managers had a smaller caseload, but the services were intensive. For each case, the case managers reviewed the case, did outreach and engagement, developed a case action plan, and completed case maintenance tasks. Challenges included the parents’ long histories with the program, the time involved with each case, and the broad range of work. Supports for the managers included training and a team for support and collaboration.
Child Support and Reentry
Incarceration and the build-up of child support arrears are clearly linked. Incarceration of a paying parent causes child support arrears to increase and a high amount of child support arrears leads to incarceration. This article addresses ways in which the criminal justice system and child support should work together to ensure a successful reentry into society for parents. Reentering parents face challenges from institutional obstacles and state policies. This article recommends policy reforms at the federal, state, and local level that will lead to more successful reentry. The reforms include changes to the child support rules, polices to encourage modification of orders while the parent is incarcerated, debt-relief programs, and supportive court practices.
Hill v. Hill (Tennessee 2021)
The trial court must follow the required procedure when modifying a child support order. The parents appeared before the court on post-divorce motions. The two children were emancipated at the time of the hearing. Child support was at issue. In an earlier hearing, the father had received custody of the son, and the court hadn’t ordered support. At issue was the father’s income. The father received an inheritance and used the money to pay for the children’s private school tuition. The trial court recognized the inheritance was income to the father but in the final order, the trial court found it would be unjust to count the inheritance as income since the father used it to pay for tuition. The trial court calculated support and entered a judgement in favor of the father for back support. The mother appealed. The appellate court reversed finding the trial court didn’t follow the required statutory procedure for a modification of support. The trial court gave the father a deviation for paying for tuition without determining if the order met the requirements for a modification. First, the trial court must determine if a significant variance exists between the current support and the proposed obligation. Once that step is complete, the trial court can deviate if appropriate.
Parental Debt and Child Well-Being: What Type of Debt Matters for Child Outcomes?
Child support arrears may have a negative impact on child well-being. In this study, the authors considered different types of debt owed by parents and the impact of debt on their children. Child support arrears are often a large amount of the debt owed by parent. Arrears have been shown to have negative consequences on those who owe them such as poor mental health, high stress, and lack of employability. These stressors extend to children. To combat this issue, the program should consider policies to prevent accrual of arrears in the first place and reduce already-accrued arrears.
Davis v. Henderson (Mississippi 2021)
When reviewing a lower court’s decision to terminate child support due to the child’s extreme actions, the proper standard of review of abuse of discretion. The chancery court terminated a father’s obligation to support his child based on the child’s refusal to have contact with the father. The obligation was terminated until the child resumed visitation with the father. The court of appeals reversed, finding the father at fault for the deterioration of the relationship. The Supreme Court reversed, finding the appellate court didn’t apply the right standard of review. In child support actions, the findings of a chancellor should be given deference absent an abuse of discretion. In its limited review, the court of appeals must determine if the outcome was possible in light of the evidence. This recognizes the chancellor’s position as the person who actually viewed the witnesses. The appellate court abused its discretion when it determined the father to be at fault for the lack of a relationship between him and his son. That determination was beyond the scope of review.
Vanderveer v. Vanderveer (Nebraska 2021)
TheThe definition of income for child support is purposefully broad. All income, unless specifically excluded, counts as long as it is regularly received for the foreseeable future. The parents, who had two children, filed for divorce. The father’s income consisted of a base salary, an annual bonus, and the proceeds from stock shares. He received stock shares from his employer annually. The shares vested in the future, and as they vested, the father cashed them and used them for household expenses. In the division of marital property, the trial court divided the stock grants received during the marriage that were not yet vested. The trial court excluded any stock proceeds from the father’s income for child support. The mother and father both appealed the final decree. The mother argued the trial court should have included the stock proceeds in the father’s child support income. The Supreme Court reversed the child support calculation. The trial court erred in a blanket exclusion of the stock proceeds from the father’s income. The definition of income for child support is inclusive. Evidence showed the father received the stock grant regularly and there was no indication this would stop, creating a rebuttable presumption to include the proceeds as income. The father failed to rebut it. The trial court reasoned the proceeds from the unvested stock had been included in the marital property division. The Supreme Court found this was error. Money can be income for child support and divided as marital property. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. In excluding all the proceeds from the father’s income, the trial court ignored the income the father will received from the unvested shares that weren’t treated as marital property.
