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.
In re Moler (Kansas 2019)
A Kansas Court didn’t have jurisdiction to modify the definition of income contained in a settlement agreement. The father was a high earner. When the parents divorced, they agreed to a base amount of child support, calculated pursuant to the guidelines, plus a supplemental amount if the father earned over $275,000. For the supplemental support calculation, the parties specifically defined “earned income”. The parents ended up in post-divorce litigation to modify base child support and to determine the amount of supplemental support due for 2015. The district court entered an order, finding that the parents should have used the guideline definition of income for the supplemental child support calculation. Both parents appealed. The appellate court found that a court had no authority to modify the definition of income for the supplemental child support calculation. The base support amount was calculated pursuant to the guidelines. This was support above and beyond that, and the father knew he was agreed to pay more support.
Child Support Compliance in Fatherhood Programs: The Role of Hope, Role Salience, and Parenting Skills
This study evaluates the roles of hope, parenting role salience, and parenting skills in predicting change in a non-custodial parent’s compliance with child support. The authors surveyed participants in a responsible fatherhood program both prior to the start of the program and upon completion.
Knell v. Knell (Wyoming 2019)
The federal Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) limits the amount that can be garnished from a person’s disposable income. A child support order meets the CCPA definition of a garnishment. The parents in this case divorced, and the order set support and entered a judgment against the father for the amount agreed to in the property settlement. The father paid support through a voluntary deduction from his paycheck, so no income withholding order was entered. Several year later, the mother filed to garnish his wages for the property settlement judgment. The father objected. He argued that his wages were already being garnished for child support and allowing any additional garnishment would violate the limits set by the CCPA. The district court approved the garnishment, and the father appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that a child support order is a garnishment for purposes the CCPA. It doesn’t matter if it is being paid voluntarily. It found to hold otherwise would defeat the purpose of the CCPA, which is to ensure people are able to support themselves. Wyoming statute gives priority to child support garnishments. Since the father’s income was already being garnished at 42% for child support, there was no room for an additional garnishment.
Transforming Colorado’s Child Support Services to a Two-Generation Approach: Lessons Learned from Implementing an 11-County Pilot Study
The Child Support Services Division of the Colorado Department of Human Services made a conscious decision to change its service delivery method from an enforcement approach to a two-generational (2Gen), family-centered approach. Eleven counties have participated in a pilot project, the 2Gen Child Support Services Transformation Project, to implement the 2Gen approach.
2Gen Procedures Integrating a two-Generation Approach to Child Support Services Colorado’s Service Level Approach
Illicit Substance Use and Child Support: An Exploratory Study
Fichtel v. Zirwas (Tennessee 2019)
A bonus payment, structured to benefit a business, may not be income for child support. Depreciation is not necessarily deductible for child support income. The mother, a doctor, filed a petition to relocate the children to Ohio. She had remarried and taken a job with a much lower income. The trial court denied her petition and calculated support. In determining the father’s income, the trial court excluded a bonus and included depreciation from his business. The trial court also found that the mother’s decision to take a lower paying job was reasonable. The mother appealed the denial of the petition for relocation and the calculation of the father’s income. The father appealed the finding of reasonableness with respect to the mother’s new job. Specific to the child support arguments, the Court of Appeals upheld the district’s court’s decision to withhold the bonus from the father’s income. It found credible the testimony that the bonus was not intended to be income to the father, but was a mechanism to control his tax liability. The Court remanded the case for further findings regarding the depreciation. If found the order did not contain sufficient findings to determine if the depreciation was a reasonable business expense. The Court further found that while the mother’s decision to leave her high paying job was voluntary, it was reasonable under the circumstances.
Neely v. Neely (Tennessee 2019)
A contempt finding has four elements, one of which is a finding that the parent willfully didn’t pay the child support order. A contempt order must specifically address each element. After a series of motions, the chancery court entered an order finding the father in contempt for failure to pay support. The father appealed, arguing the court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing or give him an opportunity to contest the motion. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the order didn’t contain a sufficient finding of willfulness. The court of appeals held these findings provide the basis for the decision.
Riegl v. Lemond (Nebraska 2019)
The Nebraska Child Support Guidelines allow a court to consider a parent’s earning capacity when setting income for child support. The parents filed for divorce. The father, a union electrician, was ordered to pay temporary support. The court set the amount based on the father’s self-reported hourly wage. At the divorce trial, the court heard testimony about the father’s income and requested his tax returns for the preceding three years. In the final order, the court used an average income for the past three years to set child support. The court also refigured the amount of temporary support based on the information found in the tax returns and ordered an arrearage payment. The father appealed, arguing that his current employment wasn’t guaranteed to continue. The court of appeals upheld the income determination. It found that father wasn’t honest about about his income. His tax returns showed a higher income than he reported during the initial hearing, and he failed to provide a paystub from his current employer despite repeated requests.
Dooling v. Dooling (Nebraska 2019)
This appeal addresses a case where the district court made multiple errors in calculating child support. The parents filed for divorce, and the district court set child support for their three children. The father appealed the order, making various arguments about the child support calculation. The mother cross-appealed, arguing the court failed to address the allocation of the children’s direct expenses. The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the calculation of the father’s taxable income, but found other errors that warranted remand. It found that the district court incorrectly calculated the amount of the health insurance premium, the father’s retirement contribution, and the number of father’s days as the custodial parent. The Supreme Court agreed with the mother that also found the final decree failed to address the allocation of the children’s expenses such as medical reimbursements, day care, and other extraordinary expenses. The case was remanded for corrections and further findings.
