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.
Improving Child Support Enforcement Outcomes with Online Dispute Resolution
Part of the 2019 Trends in State Courts publication from the National Center for State Courts, this report summarizes Ottawa County, Michigan’s efforts to use Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) tools to improve child support outcomes for families. In 2016, Ottawa County implemented ODR tools with the goal of reducing the number of contempt hearings and improving order compliance.
Relief from Government-Owed Child Support Debt and Its Effects on Parents and Children
This study recaps the results of California’s pilot project granting noncustodial parents relief from their state-owed arrears. In California, a large portion of of child support payments are owed to the government. If a parent doesn’t make the full monthly payment, interest accrues on the unpaid amount. The state implemented a pilot project in San Francisco that paid off all state-owed debt for a select group of noncustodial parents.
Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED): Findings from the Benefit-Cost Analysis
In March 2019, the authors released the Final Impact Findings from the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration Grant. This report summarizes the benefits of the program relative to the program costs. The researchers studied the benefits and costs from four perspectives: the government, custodial parents and children, noncustodial parents; and society as a whole.
Final Impact Findings from the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED): Technical Supplement
In March 2019, the authors released the Final Impact Findings from the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration Grant. This report supplements that report with further information on the evaluation design, analytic methods, the variables used to assess the types of services received by the participants and includes additional impact results.
Final Impact Findings from the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED)
The Office of Child Support Enforcement sponsored the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration Grant to study the effect of child support-led employment programs on the payment of regular child support. Under this grant, noncustodial parents (NCP) were divided into two groups: one received no special services and the second received special services in the areas of case management, enhanced child support services, employment, and parenting. The researchers used three sources of data, a baseline survey, a 12-month follow-up survey, and administrative data, to make their findings.
Streamline or Specialize: Increasing Child Support Order Modification Review Completion in Ohio
Two counties in Ohio, Cuyahoga and Franklin, used behavioral strategies to raise the number of parents completing the modification review process. Using the existing method, parents were requesting a review of their support order but weren’t completing the process. These two counties designed interventions that would increase the number of completed requests.
Watkins v. Benjamin (North Carolina 2019)
For purposes of UIFSA jurisdiction, a new child support order isn’t established because the obligor of the order changes. The parents divorced in North Carolina, and the order granted custody to the father and ordered the mother to pay support. The mother moved to Maryland and the children eventually came to live with her. The parties engaged in ongoing litigation. The mother filed for child support in Maryland, which was dismissed. The father filed to clarify child support in the North Carolina action. The North Carolina court found it had continuing exclusive jurisdiction and set the father’s support obligation. The mother appealed, arguing that North Carolina didn’t have jurisdiction to establish a new support order. The North Carolina Court of Appeals disagreed. It found this action was a modification of an existing order, not the establishment of a new order. A support order benefits a child, regardless of who pays. The fact that the obligor changes doesn’t mean a new order is established. Therefore, the North Carolina court had continuing exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order.
In re LaForest (Kansas 2019)
An award of attorney fees cannot be offset against child support. A mother and father filed for divorce. The divorce dragged on, and eventually, the mother obtained a default divorce. The father filed to set aside the default order and asked for the attorney fees incurred to prepare the motion. The district court awarded him the fees and offset them against his child support obligation. The mother appealed. The Appellate Court first considered the award of attorney fees and found it inappropriate. Regardless, the Court noted attorney fees cannot be offset against child support. That is taking money that essentially belongs to a child. To do this is a deviation without proper findings.
Explainers and Case Managers: Engaging California Parents During Child Support Order Establishment
Two California counties used Behavioral Intervention strategies to reduce the number of default child support orders. Parents in California were being served for paternity cases with a service complaint packet, which contained long and confusing documents. The counties were finding that most parents didn’t respond to service, which led to default orders.
Herrin v. Perkins (Mississippi 2019)
A parent should object to the sufficiency of a contempt pleading at trial. The father and mother agreed to visitation and amounts for current and back child support for their child and a judgment for the mother’s attorney fees. A year later, the mother filed a contempt petition. The petition included the amounts due for arrears and the judgment for attorney’s fees. The father answered the petition and counterclaimed for modification, but requested no further information about the arrearage amount. The hearing was continued several times. At the hearing, the father testified that a child from another relationship had come to live with him, and he had gone back to school to train for a higher paying job. The Chancery Court found that good intentions aside, the father was in contempt. However, the Court modified his current support for six months. The father appealed, arguing the petition should have set out each instance of contempt. The appellate court upheld the order, finding that the father made no argument about the sufficiency of the petition during the trial. He didn’t conduct discovery or make a motion to dismiss. Since the issue wasn’t raised at trial, the appellate court had to review the order against the plain error standard of review. The Chancery Court didn’t incorrectly apply a law, so the order was affirmed.
