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.
Friday v. Miss. Dep’t of Human Services (Mississippi 2021)
A paternity action must be brought before a child turns 21. The Mississippi Department of Human Services filed to establish paternity for a child who at the time of filing was 20 years old. The father filed several motions to dismiss, arguing the child had turned 21 and the case shouldn’t proceed. The Chancery Court entered an order adjudicating the father’s paternity and ordering a year of support. The father appealed. He argued the Chancery court was without jurisdiction to hear the case. The appellate court upheld the adjudication of paternity. The statute clearly authorized the filing of the paternity petition. Under the father’s reasoning, all open cases would have to be dismissed at the running of the statute of limitations.
Canzoneri v. Burns (Tennessee 2021)
The Tennessee child support guidelines contain specific factors to consider when declaring parent underemployed. In this modification action, the father was a self-employed landscaper. Citing his education, background, and a booming economy, the trial court found him underemployed and imputed a higher income. Interestingly, his support was reduced because mother’s income had increased. Regardless, the father appealed. The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion, vacated the support portions of the order, and remanded for further findings. The court noted the difficultly in determining income for a self-employed parent. The child support guidelines clearly lay out factors to determine if a parent is underemployed. The trial court’s statement about the father’s education, background, and the state of the economy didn’t address the required factors.
Pace v. Pace (Mississippi 2021)
If a parent’s earnings are reduced through the parent’s own actions, the court may use earning capacity to determine income for child support. The parents filed for divorce. The father, a doctor, had a substance abuse problem. To keep his medical license, he had to undergo treatment and consent to monitoring. Instead, he surrendered his medical license. During the trial, he claimed he couldn’t afford the monitoring program. The chancellor used his earning capacity to set child support in the final order. The father appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. The record contained substantial evidence to support using his earning capacity. He claimed he was disabled due to a stroke but presented no evidence to support the claim. He would be receiving enough money in the asset division to pay for the monitoring program.
In re Rees (Kansas 2021)
When a parent voluntarily leaves a higher paying job, the court must determine if the termination was for rational and sufficient reasons and the parent can’t find a similarly paying job. The father moved and found a lower paying job. He petitioned to modify his child support based on his reduced income. As the reason for his move, the father presented evidence he no longer had visitation rights to the child and he would be closer to his family. The trial court granted his petition and reduced support. The mother appealed. The appellate court upheld the modification. The mother argued the trial court erred by relying on a case which interpreted an old version of child support guidelines. This version made it harder for a parent to prove underemployment. The appellate court agreed the trial court applied the wrong guidelines but found it made no difference to the outcome of this situation. The father presented evidence to justify his move, which is required under the current guidelines. The error was harmless.
Task 11: States’ Child Support Guidelines for Children with Disabilities
This report explores the issue of setting child support for children with special needs. Estimates show an increase in the number of children with special needs over the last few decades. The children’s needs are wide and varied, which can make the cost to raise these children high. A parent may need to provide full-time care, which limits the parent’s ability to earn. Child support is critical for these families. Federal regulations provide no guidance in setting support for special-needs children. The report reviews two ways states deal with support for children with disabilities: within the guidelines and by extending support beyond the age of majority.
Nielson v. Nielson (Nebraska 2021)
A parent who seeks to modify a child support order must show an unforeseeable material change of circumstances that occurred after the entry of the original decree. The parents agreed to child support in the initial decree, even though the amount didn’t match the child support worksheets attached to the order. The father failed to pay, and the mother filed for contempt. Subsequently, the father filed to modify his child support order based on a downturn in his business. The trial court denied the modification. The father appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the order finding the record contained ample evidence to support the denial. The father’s lifestyle belied his claim of a reduced income. Since the divorce, he had purchased a new house and car, remarried, and maintained a country club membership.
Reducing Child Support Debt in the Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC) Demonstration
The federal Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC) demonstration project was a federally-funded grant to study the effectiveness of using procedural justice methods to enforce child support orders. This brief discusses strategies used to deal with child support arrears. Most participants in the PJAC program had accrued arrears. PJAC case managers used the procedural justice principle of helpfulness to assist the participants with their arrears balance. The case managers reviewed each case to develop a strategy for reducing the arrears. Strategies included finding time periods where support should not have accrued, negotiating arrears owed to the custodial parent, and utilizing state arrears forgiveness programs.
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson (North Carolina 2021)
Findings of fact must support any deviation from presumptive child support amount. The mother filed to modify child support. The father responded with a request for a decrease. He paid monthly support and made an annual payment based on a percentage of his bonus. The final order decreased both support and the percentage of the annual bonus payment, determined an overpayment of support, and changed the allocation of uninsured medical expenses and activities. The mother appealed. Since the trial court deviated from presumptive support, it was required to make specific findings. The appellate court found the order lacked these findings and reversed and remanded. The order lacked information about the determination of the father’s income. The appellate court found the arrears would need recalculated. The mother also made an argument about the calculation of her income. Again, the trial court’s decision lacked the proper findings for appellate review.
Warren County DSS v. Garrelts (North Carolina 2021)
A determination of paternity affects a substantial right. As such, the applicable law when determining paternity is the law of the “situs of the claim” or in other words, the law of the state where the claim arises. The mother and defendant, who lived in Virginia, agreed the defendant would donate sperm for artificial insemination. The insemination happened in Virginia, the child was born there, and lived there until moving to California. In California, the mother began receiving public assistance. At California’s request, North Carolina brought a paternity action. The defendant argued Virginia law should apply to the paternity determination. In Virginia, sperm donors are not considered legal parents. However, the trial court, using an interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, applied North Carolina law. The final order named the Defendant was the legal parent and set current and retroactive support. The Defendant appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded. The Full Faith and Credit Clause only applies to an existing judgment or order. There was no judgement in this case. A paternity law is substantive law so the correct law to be applied is the law of the “situs of the claim.” For these facts, that is Virginia. The parties made the agreement in Virginia, the insemination took place there, the child was born there, and the child and mother lived there until moving to California. This result ensures an equitable result. Parent can expect to be bound by the laws of the state of conception and won’t be able to forum shop for a more favorable outcome.
State ex rel. Secy’ v. Cares (Kansas 2021)
A voluntary acknowledgement has the effect of an order of paternity and the statutes designate specific timeframes for recission. The State brought an action to enforce a child support order against the father. The father argued the voluntary acknowledgement of paternity, which was signed four years prior, was void. The district court found no basis to set aside the paternity acknowledgement. The father appealed. The appellate court affirmed the decision. The statute sets out two specific timeframes for rescinding a paternity acknowledgement. First, there is a sixty-day grace period. Second, the acknowledgement can be rescinded up to one year after the child’s birth on the grounds of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. Neither of these timeframes applied in this case. Recission was not a legal possibility.
