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 Whildin (Kansas 2019)
A settlement agreement term that imputes minimum income to a parent for a future modification of child support may be against public policy. As part of a divorce settlement agreement, the parents stipulated that for any future child support modification, the father’s income would be $75,000 or his adjusted gross income, whichever was greater. The father filed for modification based on the mother’s increase in income. The district court found the settlement agreement term contrary to public policy and imputed an income of $52,000 to the father. The mother appealed and argued to enforce the settlement agreement. The appellate court upheld the district court decision. It found that the setting support using the terms of the agreement artificially lowered the mother’s portion of the support obligation. The father, who was the obligor, didn’t have the actual earnings to support the difference. One of the purposes of child support is to maintain a consistent standard of living for the children, regardless of residence. This agreement was contrary to that purpose. The children would have a much higher standard of living at their mother’s residence.
Kennedy v. Kennedy (Nebraska 2019)
A parent who requests a modification of child support must show a material change in circumstances occurred after the entry of the original decree and that wasn’t contemplated when the decree was entered. A lower income isn’t necessarily a change if the parent’s choices led to the reduction. The state of Nebraska filed to modify the father’s child support based on a change in income. The father had lost his job as a master electrician. He then started his own business, which didn’t do well. Shortly after the modification filing, the child was placed in a group home. During the hearing, the father made an oral motion to suspend his support. The district court denied both the state’s modification and the request to suspend support. The district court found the father failed to show that he couldn’t find comparable work and didn’t prove that his business would continue to lose money. The father appealed. The court of appeals upheld the district court decision. It found that while his circumstances weren’t entirely his fault, the father wasn’t willing to take necessary steps, such as moving, to find a job with similar pay. His testimony didn’t indicate long-term low performance for his business. The appellate court further found no error in denying his motion to suspend support. The placement was short term, and the child still had needs upon her return home.
Marriage of Alvis (Colorado 2019)
The child support guidelines account for the first $250 of unreimbursed medical expenses. Neither party can be ordered to pay this amount. The parents’ divorce decree ordered shared custody of three children and set support accordingly. Under the guideline calculation, the father paid his share to the mother. A few years later, the father filed for a motion to compel the mother to pay the first $250 of uninsured medical expenses for each child, each year. He reasoned that since she received support, she should pay the uninsured medical. After a series of motions, the court ordered that neither party could request reimbursement for an amount less than $250 per child per year. The father appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the district court order regarding reimbursement, but remanded the case on another ground. The appellate court found the district court correctly interpreted the statute to mean that the guidelines included the first $250 total spent on the child. The statute didn’t call for each parent to spend $250. The appellate court then determined the statute excluded that amount from the definition of extraordinary medical expenses. The legislative history indicated an assumption that a child has at least $250 in medical expenses every year. A child support obligation is shared, which defeats the father’s argument that the recipient of support should pay.
In Their Own Voices: The Hopes and Struggles of Responsible Fatherhood Program Participants in the Parents and Children Evaluation
This report sets out information gleaned from fathers during interviews as part of the Parents and Children Together (PACT) grant. The fathers were participants in Responsible Fatherhood programs. The PACT grant was funded to study the impact of the Responsible Fatherhood programs, the program design process, and to discover characteristics of the participants. The outcomes of the research will guide program design for future fatherhood efforts.
Parents and Children Together: Effects of Four Responsible Fatherhood Program for Low-Income Parents
This report sets out the findings from a study on the impact of participation in a fatherhood program. This report is part of the Parents and Children Together (PACT) grant that was funded to study programs funded by the Responsible Fatherhood grant. This piece of the evaluation studied outcomes for fathers who participated in one of four programs that offered services in three areas: parenting and fatherhood, healthy marriage and relationships, and economic stability.
State v. Jarvel (Nebraska 2019)
A nonsupporting party is the necessary party in a proceeding for child and medical support. A parent who appears at a hearing waives a claim to defective service. The state of Nebraska filed a complaint against the father to establish paternity and support. At the initial hearing, the father requested a continuance. He then failed to appear at the next hearing. The referee heard testimony and made a recommendation to the district court as to a support amount and arrears, which the district court approved. The father filed various motions, including a motion for a new trial because of irregularities in the trial proceeding. The district court denied all his motions, and he appealed. He argued the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the mother was not a party to the action. The court of appeals found this argument without merit. The proceeding benefited the children. She was already financially supporting the children. The father also argued he was not properly served with the initial complaint and notice of the hearings. The court of appeals reviewed the process that was followed for service and providing the father with notice and found no evidence to support his arguments.
Martin v. Borries (Mississippi 2019)
A voluntary reduction in income is not a substantial change of circumstances for a modification of child support. A change must be unforeseen. At the time of the parents’ divorce, the father worked overseas and earned a substantial amount of money. After the divorce, his job ended, and he moved back to Mississippi and found work as an electrician, making substantially less. He filed to modify his child support based on his income reduction. The district court denied his request, and he appealed. The court of appeals upheld the decision. The court noted that the father’s testimony showed that at the time of the divorce, he knew his overseas job was not permanent, so its end was not unexpected. The court also found that he had other opportunities for high paying jobs, but he wouldn’t take them for personal reasons.
State of Kansas v. Manson (Kansas 2019)
A voluntary acknowledgement of paternity must be revoked before the child turns one otherwise the parent-child relationship is permanent. The state of Kansas filed to establish support against the father for the benefit of a two-year-old child. The father had signed a voluntary acknowledgement at the child’s birth. At the hearing, he produced genetic test results from a home kit that showed he was not the child’s biological father. The district court heard evidence to determine if further testing was in the child’s best interests. After hearing, the district court denied further testing. The father appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in finding that additional genetic testing wasn’t in the child’s best interests. The court of appeals upheld the decision. It found that the father didn’t rescind the acknowledgment before the child’s first birthday, as required by statute. Therefore, the acknowledgement become a permanent. Even if the father wasn’t the child’s biological father, he would be obligated for support.
Alexander v. Alexander (Tennessee 2019)
A judgment for child support arrears, which is based on a child support amount different from that shown on the child support worksheet of record, is void. In their divorce, the parents agreed to no child support. In return, the mother was to contribute to a college fund for their children. The trial court adopted the marital dissolution agreement, entered a permanent parenting plan that set out mother’s presumptive obligation, and referenced the required child support worksheet, which showed a deviation to zero. Several years later, in a modification action, the trial court entered a judgment against the mother for past due support based on the presumptive support amount. The mother appealed. The appellate court reversed the decision. It found that Tennessee statute requires a child support worksheet, which then becomes part of the official record. The child support worksheet reflected a zero support order. A judgment entered for a different amount was an abuse of the court’s discretion.
Miller v. Miller (Nebraska 2019)
A child support modification may be denied if the parent’s reduction in income is due to the parent’s own poor financial decisions. The father filed to modify his child support based on a reduction in income. The district court denied the modification, and the father appealed. The appellate court upheld the decision. It found the father’s income varied year to year. The court averaged the father’s income over two periods and found a decline. However, this isn’t the only factor to consider when reviewing an order for modification. The father’s financial records showed he chose to spend money on golf and restaurants rather than paying child support. The appellate court found the district court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying the modification.
