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.
Eicke v. Eicke (Nebraska 2021)
Parents must be making a retirement deduction in order to receive credit in their adjusted gross income. In this divorce action, to calculate income for child support, the district court deducted a retirement contribution from both parents’ incomes even though neither parent was contributing. The district court also credited mother for the entire health insurance premium. She carried five people on the policy, including the parties’ three children, and the cost was the same regardless of the number of children. The final order awarded sole physical custody of the children to the mother and ordered father to pay support. The father appealed the final order. The appellate court reversed and remanded the order for entry of a new child support calculation. Subtracting the retirement amount was error when the evidence showed neither parent was contributing. The district court also erred in crediting mother for the entire health insurance premium. The appellate court adopted the father’s suggestion of giving her credit for 3/5 of the amount, which reflects the number of marital children. The district court erred in ordering the father to pay half of all extracurricular activities when no request was made for this relief and no evidence presented about the cost of activities.
Lageman v. Lageman (Mississippi 2021)
When a parent’s annual adjusted gross income exceeds $100,000, a court must make findings as to whether the application of the guidelines is reasonable. The final decree of divorce ordered the father to pay support in the amount equaled to twenty percent of his adjusted gross income. The father appealed arguing the amount was higher than the children’s expenses. The appellate court affirmed the amount. The chancery court supported its decision with detailed findings. It analyzed the trial testimony, the required financial statements, the children’s expenses and lifestyle, and the reasonableness of the award. While the expenses listed on the mother’s statement were less than the amount of support, she didn’t include other costs related to raising the children including housing, utilities, and other expenses. The appellate court found no error in the decision.
State on behalf of Pierce K. v. Jacob K. (Nebraska 2021)
An abatement of child support is discretionary. The father filed a contempt petition against mother for violating their parenting plan. He asked to be awarded custody of their child and for a modification of child support. The trial court granted the father’s petition, set a new visitation schedule, and ordered the mother to pay support. The mother appealed arguing the court erred in modifying custody and ordering her to pay support. In the alternate, she argued she was entitled to a deviation in support during summer visitation. The appellate court affirmed the order. The appellate court found no error in the custody change, so the mother’s argument that she should not have to pay support failed. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in not granting the abatement either. The trial court adopted the mother’s child support worksheet, which didn’t request an abatement. The father was going to bear the cost of providing transportation for the child during the summer visitation. The appellate court added these two factors together to justify the lack of a provision for an abatement of support.
Scott v. Scott (Kansas 2021)
Incarceration is one factor to be considered when modifying a child support order. The father, who was incarcerated in the federal penitentiary, filed to modify his support prospectively and retroactively. He asked the court to calculate retroactive and prospective support based on actual income. The district court denied his motion. He appealed. The court of appeals affirmed. Following Kansas Supreme Court precedent, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the modification. The court questioned the father about his prison income, his willingness to pay some support and his calculation of a fair amount. The appellate court noted it was the father’s own acts that led to his incarceration and his children’s needs continued.
In re Ralph (Kansas 2021)
Due process requires a modification filing include all statutorily required documents. In 2017, the father filed to modify child support but failed to include the required domestic relations affidavit (DRA) or child support worksheet (CSW). In her answer, the mother noted the missing documents. Father took no further action until 2019 when he filed again, this time including the DRA and child support worksheet. He requested support be modified retroactive to the date of the 2017 filing. He argued equity demanded he be given credit for child support. The trial court modified support prospectively but denied his request for retroactive support. The father appealed. The appellate court affirmed the decision. It found the father didn’t perfect his modification filing until 2018 when he filed the petition, DRA, and CSW. Due process demanded the mother have those documents to review. The appellate court found no merit in the father’s argument that the motions was to terminate, not modify support. Had he followed the statute and not sat on his action, he would have been able to modify the support in a timely fashion.
Parenting Time and Child Support: Information for Fatherhood Programs and Fathers
Fatherhood programs play an important role in helping fathers understand and address legal issues such as child support and supporting the fathers in building relationships with their children and coparent. While child support and visitation are separate legal issues, research shows the two are by nature connected and benefit each other. This brief offers service delivery suggestions for fatherhood programs including: providing coparenting skills training, partnering with other community organizations, learning about the procedures and processes for establishing paternity, helping parents understand parenting time and support are separate legal issues, training on domestic violence, engaging mothers as well as fathers, advocating for state funding for parenting plans, and collecting and sharing data with child support programs and courts.
Greer v. Greer (Mississippi 2021)
A parent who fails to pursue a paternity challenge will not be provided with post-trial relief. The mother became pregnant while separated from the father. The parents reconciled and the baby was given the father’s last name. When the parents filed for divorce, the father requested genetic testing for the younger child. His request was granted, and he was ordered to schedule and pay for the testing, which he failed to do. He also didn’t appear at the divorce hearing. In the final decree, he was ordered to pay support for the parties two children. The father appealed arguing the court should have determined paternity for the younger child before granting the divorce. Without the proper paternity determination, the divorce decree was not a final order. The court of appeals affirmed the decree. The marital presumption is rebuttable. The father waived his right by failing to schedule, pay for, or submit to the genetic testing that he had requested. Paternity was properly determined by the marital presumption, so the divorce decree was a final order.
Halterman v. Halterman (North Carolina 2021)
A foreign support order must be properly registered under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction for enforcement and modification. The mother, a resident of North Carolina, filed to register three Florida custody and support orders. The father, a resident of Virginia, filed to dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to comply with UIFSA. The trial court granted the motion and the mother appealed. The court of appeals affirmed. The requirements to register an order under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and UIFSA are different. The mother’s petition complied with the provisions to register a custody order under the UCCJEA but not with UIFSA’s provisions to register a support order. The appellate court rejected the mother’s argument of substantial compliance with UIFSA. Her petition didn’t request the proper relief or contain the required sworn statement.
Bruce v. Bruce (Wyoming 2021)
The trial court’s child support order will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. The parents divorced. The final decree ordered the father pay child support for the child and half of the travel expenses. The father appealed the order arguing the court should have attributed a higher income to the mother, erred in awarding retroactive support and in denying a deviation for travel expenses. The Supreme Court affirmed the order. The mother’s income was consistent with her financial affidavit and testimony at trial. She attached sufficient documentation to her financial affidavit and the father offered no proof that any missing documentation would change the income calculation. The trial court properly excluded a means tested source of income from the mother’s income. The trial court was well within its discretion to award support back to final day of the custody trial. The final order appropriately split the travel costs. The temporary order granted him a deviation but he was responsible for all travel costs during that time.
State ex rel. Moody v. Roker (Tennessee 2021)
A ruling in a final order must be supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. The mother, a Georgia resident, used the child support program to establish paternity and support pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. The father was incarcerated in Tennessee. The father filed numerous pretrial motions. Significant to this appeal, he filed a motion to participate in the hearing and for transportation. The trial court held a hearing, which was attended by the child support attorney. The final order adjudicating the father’s paternity and set support. The father appealed. The appellate court vacated the order and remanded for a new trial. The father raised several issues, including the court’s jurisdiction over him. The appellate court reversed due to the fact the trial court didn’t rule on the father’s pretrial motions prior to the hearing, including his motion to participate. That meant he wasn’t able to attend the hearing and present evidence and he had no explanation for this determination. The final order didn’t contain required findings and wasn’t based on properly admitted evidence.
