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.
Thomas v. Thomas (Mississippi 2019)
A parent is entitled to credit against monthly child support for Social Security benefits paid to a child because of a parent’s disability. The parent is also entitled to credit against arrears for a lump sum received after the arrears have accrued. The mother and father filed for divorce. To calculate support, the court determined the appropriate adjusted gross income, gave credit for visitation, and then subtracted the monthly benefit amount. The court granted credit for a lump sum against the father’s arrears. Both parents appealed the final order on a number of grounds. Specific to child support, the mother argued that the father should not have been given credit for his social security benefits against monthly support and the arrears balance. She argued for an exception to Mississippi caselaw for a parent who makes a substantial amount of money over his disability payment. The court of appeals upheld the credit against the monthly support obligation. The appellate court reversed the decision with respect to the arrears credit. It found the majority of the arrears accrued after the lump sum was received. Lump sums could only apply to arrears already accrued. The appellate court remanded the case so the credit could be properly allocated.
Scot v. Scot (Tennessee 2019)
Income for a modification of child support must be based on a parent’s most recent actual income. A father filed to change custody and modify child support accordingly. During the hearing, he testified as to his earnings in 2017 and to what he might earn in 2018. The court calculated child support using his prospective income for 2018. Finding no significant variance, the district court denied his modification request, and he appealed. The appellate court found that the district improperly used prospective income. The court should have used his actual income for 107. The case was reversed and remanded for new findings.
A New Response to Child Support Noncompliance
Research shows that parents are more concerned with being treated fairly than with the actual outcome of a child support case. With this principle in mind, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) selected five sites to participate in the Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC) project, which will explore the application of procedural justice concepts to the enforcement of child support orders.
In re Makinna B. (Tennessee 2019)
A parent must provide evidence of the cost of work-related childcare in order to get credit for it in a child support calculation. The mother and father had one child, and the mother was the primary residential parent. A few months after entry of the initial order, the father filed for modification, requesting custody of his daughter. The juvenile court granted his petition and modified child support accordingly. The mother appealed both the change of custody and the child support calculation. With respect to child support, she argued that there was no evidence to support the credit for childcare expenses. The appellate court agreed with the mother and reversed the decision. The appellate court found that there must be evidence in the record of the actual cost of childcare. The father included the cost on his worksheet without providing proof during the hearing.
In re M.F. (Kansas 2019)
For an oral parenting contract to be enforceable, the parent must show a meeting of the minds on all essential elements. K.L. and T.F., same-sex partners, were in a long-term relationship. T.F. gave birth to M.F. using artificial insemination. The women had no written parenting agreement. They later separated, and K.L. filed a parentage petition. The court heard evidence from many people about K.L.’s relationship with M.F. The court denied K.L.’s petition finding that there was no meeting of the minds as to a co-parenting relationship, and the evidence didn’t show that K.L. had held herself out to be M.F.’s parent. K.L. appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision. K.L. failed to show how an oral parenting contract would give her any rights under the Kansas Paternity Act, which clearly contemplates a written agreement. The court noted that the evidence was hotly disputed at trial. K.L. didn’t identify the essential elements for an oral parenting contract, much less show a meeting of the minds for an oral contract.
MSC v. MCG (Wyoming 2019)
The argument contained in a motion should support the requested relief. The father filed a “Motion for Relief from a Child Support Order.” He requested relief from an income withholding order, but the body of his motion asked the court to set aside the underlying support order. The father argued the Wyoming Child Support Guidelines were unconstitutional. The district court did not act on his motion, and it was deemed denied. The father appealed. The Supreme Court upheld the denial of the motion. The Court found the father had an avenue to challenge the support order, if that was his intent.
Mitra v. Irigreddy (Tennessee 2019)
Child support arrears should be paid in a timely manner. The court has discretion to craft an appropriate repayment plan. The parents divorced in Texas. The mother was awarded custody of their daughter. Both parents moved frequently, within the United States and to India in the following years, and visitation was an issue. At one time, the mother lived in Nashville, and the father filed for custody of their daughter there. Even though neither party lived in Tennessee, the parties consented to jurisdiction for the action. The court continued mother’s custody, awarded the father visitation, set child support and an arrears payment. The father appealed the final order on a variety of grounds, including the amount of the arrears payment. The court of appeals found the district court didn’t abuse its discretion when setting the arrears payment, which included back child support and a judgment for attorney’s fees. It found that the father had left the child in the mother’s care for a major amount of time and had provided no support during that time.
Oswald v. Oswald (Nebraska 2019)
A modification request may be denied when the parent has voluntarily resigned from a job. The father filed to modify his support obligation. The father had resigned from a high paying sales job when the company restructured his compensation plan and was working at a job that paid significantly less. After hearing, the district court imputed him at the amount he would have earned under the new compensation structure at his original job. Using this income, the support calculation didn’t change by the required amount, so the court denied the modification. The father appealed, arguing the district court should have used his actual income. The court of appeals upheld the order. It found that the evidence showed that the father voluntarily resigned from his sales job. The appellate court found the change in income was not due to his health or other circumstances beyond his control, but was instead a personal choice.
Schimpf v. Hardy (Mississippi 2019)
A non-custodial parent should receive credit for child support paid pursuant to an interim order. By a decree of divorce, the mother was granted custody of two children, and the father was ordered to pay support. The father filed to modify custody and support and for contempt. The mother answered and filed a counterclaim. An interim order granted the father custody of the children and ordered him to deposit his support payments into his attorney’s trust account pending the final order. The final order granted the father custody and terminated his support obligation. It also ordered that the child support payments made during the interim period be disbursed to the mother. The father appealed, arguing he was entitled to credit for the payments. The court of appeals reversed this portion of the order and ordered the payments be returned. Unlike situations where a child is primarily living with a non-custodial parent without the benefit of a court order, this father had an order. He was paying support and providing for them as their custodial parent.
Tooker v. Tooker (Colorado 2019)
Non-discretionary educational benefits, such as tuition assistance and a book stipend, are not income for child support. The value of potential income is not necessarily income for child support. The mother filed to modify the father’s child support obligation. The father, a veteran, was receiving tuition assistance and a book stipend from the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008. The district court excluded the benefits from his gross income. The tuition assistance was paid directly to the college, and the book stipend, while paid directly to the father, had a specific purpose. The mother also argued to include the value of timber that could be sold from the father’s property. The court didn’t include this amount either. The mother appealed. The appellate court upheld the order. It found if a benefit can’t be used to reduce the father’s general living expenses, then it shouldn’t be included as income. The appellate court also found that the court didn’t err in not including income from a potential sale of timber. The court properly imputed employment income to father and had no obligation to include a one-time or future sale of goods.
