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.
Carman v. Harris (Kansas 2019)
A parent’s income for child support can be adjusted for specific factors. On appeal, the application of an adjustment is reviewed for an abuse of the court’s discretion. The mother filed to modify child support, among other terms of an initial custody and support order. The district court modified the support based on the parents’ current incomes. The mother appealed the order based on several grounds: adjustments for insurance, parenting time, and multiple family, and retroactive date of the modification. The appellate court upheld the order. It found all the grounds for appeal were discretionary, and the court didn’t abuse its discretion. The mother didn’t provide evidence to support her claims that the father wasn’t paying insurance or exercising his parenting time. The court followed Kansas statute when setting the retroactive date of the order.
State v. Julio G. (Nebraska 2019)
In Nebraska, an indigent parent is entitled to court-appointed counsel in paternity cases. The state of Nebraska filed a support action against the father and attached an acknowledgment of paternity. The father challenged the acknowledgment. He testified that he spoke no English, read no English, and did not understand what he was signing. The court decided that the case had turned into a paternity action, determined the father was indigent, and appointed counsel. Genetic testing confirmed paternity, and the court entered a paternity and support order. The state of Nebraska appealed the appointment of counsel. The Supreme Court upheld the appointment. The Court found the father made a timely challenge to the acknowledgment, and he properly alleged a material mistake of fact. Due process requires the appointment of counsel for indigent parents in a paternity action; therefore, the district court’s order was proper.
Lemus v. Martinez (Wyoming 2019)
Sufficient information must support a determination of income. The parents were never married. They had two children. The parents separated, and the father filed for custody and support. Prior to hearing, the father filed an incomplete financial affidavit and two partial personal tax returns. Testimony during the hearing showed he had wages from a job as well as self-employment income. However, he filed no business tax returns. Using the various pieces of information, the court set a monthly support obligation based on his wages and income from rental properties. The father appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion. The Supreme Court reversed the order and remanded for further evidence as to father’s income. Wyoming statute requires a child support order be based on full disclosure of a parent’s income either through testimony or the financial affidavit. The Court found the evidence of the father’s income was inadequate. The Court found the father testified he had at least three businesses, yet the record only contained information about his income from one. The Court further noted it is not uncommon for courts to require additional information on a parent’s income.
In re Interest of Cayden R. (Nebraska 2019)
Having children in foster care is not a rebuttable presumption under the child support guidelines. A statute allows for minimum support in low income cases. A juvenile court support order required the mother to pay $50 per month child support while her five children were in foster care. Guideline support was $0, but the referee recommended, and the district court approved, a minimum support amount of $50. The mother appealed, arguing that the court erred in applying the guidelines. The appellate court affirmed the order. The court noted that all child support obligations should be established according to the guidelines, and that Nebraska statute allows for minimum support in low income cases. The court found that the evidence supported the deviation to $50. The mother testified that she had been working at the time the kids were placed in care. She earned $14 an hour before she voluntarily left her job. The court noted that even with her obligations in the juvenile court case, she has time to work.
In re Aragon (Colorado 2019)
A worker’s compensation lump sum is income for child support. To factor the lump sum into the parent’s income, divide the lump sum payment by the number of weeks the parent didn’t work. The parents, who have five children, filed for divorce. The father received a lump sum workers’ compensation payment due to a work-related injury. To figure his monthly income for child support, the district court divided the lump sum by twelve months and added that amount to his other monthly income. The father appealed, arguing that the workers’ compensation benefit should be spread out over the time of lost wages, a longer period in this case. The appellate court agreed. The appellate court noted that a workers’ compensation payment is meant to replace lost wages, and the amount is calculated based on the injured employee’s weekly wage. For child support income, it is appropriate to divide the amount by the number of lost weeks of work. To do otherwise penalizes the injured parent.
Dowding v. Dowding (Nebraska 2019)
A signed and notarized paternity acknowledgement is a legal finding, which can only be challenged on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. A challenge to an acknowledgment must be properly before the court. The parents had a child, and the father signed a paternity acknowledgement immediately after his birth. Several years later, the parents later married. During their divorce proceeding, the mother filed a “Rescission of Acknowledgment of Paternity,” a document, not a legal pleading. The father filed a motion to strike the rescission. The district court found that the filing was not a proper legal pleading and granted the father’s motion to strike. The mother made an oral motion for leave to amend her pleadings, which the district court also denied. The final order granted custody to the father subject to the mother’s parenting time. The mother appealed the district court’s denial of her motion to amend her pleading to challenge paternity. The appellate court affirmed the decision. It found that the issue of the child’s paternity was not properly before the court and to amend her pleading would not have made a difference.
Pearrow v. Pearrow (Nebraska 2019)
The district court has flexibility to craft an appropriate support amount when parents have an unusual custody arrangement. The worksheet must still accompany the order so the appellate court can properly review an order. The parents divorced and agreed to joint physical and legal custody of the children. A year later, the mother filed to modify the decree. The parents agreed that the mother would have primary custody of the two older children, and the parents would have joint custody of the younger two. The court adopted the father’s proposed support calculation. He used a hybrid calculation. He figured support for all four children under each calculator, then averaged the amount and gave credit for providing health insurance. The mother appealed. The court of appeals upheld the child support calculation. It found no merit to the mother’s argument that the district court deviated from the guidelines. Because of the custody arrangement, no one guideline calculation applied. Instead, the court used some flexibility to find a support calculation that best addressed the situation.
Ewing v. Evans (Nebraska 2019)
To modify a child support order, a change in circumstances must occur after the entry of the original order. A parent who shows a change of 10 percent or more in the support, which amounts to at least $25, creates a rebuttable presumption that the order should be modified. Shortly before the parents’ divorce was final, the father was disabled in a work-related incident. He suffered from a traumatic brain injury as well as other injuries. About a year later, the father filed to modify support. To support a substantial change of circumstances, he testified as to the extent and effect of his injuries, his ongoing treatment, and his inability to hold down a job because of his injuries. His only income was from benefits from Veterans’ Affairs. The district court denied his request, stating that his injury existed at the time of the divorce and was not a material change of circumstances. The father appealed. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case. The court of appeals noted that the father created the necessary rebuttable presumption of a material change of circumstances, and the mother showed no evidence to rebut it. The appellate court found that the father’s disability was not temporary, and he was continuing treatment. The court of appeals remanded for an order with a finding that the father showed a substantial change of circumstances and that the order be modified back to the date of filing.
Thomas v. Burgett (North Carolina 2019)
Rent payments are income for child support, but the parent may deduct insurance and property tax attributable to the rental property. The court must complete a four-step analysis before deviating from the guidelines. The parents filed for divorce. They had one child. At the time of divorce, the father was retired and received social security. The child also received social security payments through the father. He also received rent, which the district included as income. The court did not adjust the rental income for the cost of insurance or property tax. The court also deviated from the guidelines, choosing not to credit the father for the child’s social security payments. The father appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded the order. It agreed with the father that insurance and property tax should have been accounted for in the rental income. The appellate court also found that the trial court did not follow the four-step analysis for the deviation. On remand, the court must make more specific findings.
Orange County, ex rel., Lacy v. Canup (North Carolina 2019)
The definition of income may include the value of rent when a parent is living rent-free. The parents were not married and had one child. The father acknowledged paternity when the child was born. The child support agency filed an application for order to show case as to why a support order should not be entered. The mother wasn’t employed, but she periodically sold personal items and deposited the proceeds in her bank account. The court averaged the amount of the deposits and counted this as income. She lived rent-free with her grandparents, and the courts counted the value of the rent as income, too. The court entered its final order, setting current support and arrears. The agency appealed the calculation of the mother’s income. The court of appeals found that the definition of income includes maintenance received from other parties. The court of appeals found no abuse of discretion in assigning a value to the rent and including it as income to the mother.
