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 ACH (Colorado 2019)
An established psychological parent, who has sought and obtained an allocation of parental responsibilities, can be ordered to pay child support. In this case, the mother had a child from a previous relationship. The mother and father had their own child. The mother and father separated and shared equal parenting time with both children. In 2016, the mother decided to move to Texas, and she filed for an allocation of parental duties only for her biological child. In response, the father filed for establishment as the older child’s psychological parent and an allocation of parental responsibilities for both children, including the establishment of child support. The parents stipulated to the father’s establishment as the psychological parent. In its final order, the court allowed the move to Texas, awarded the father substantial parenting time, but declined to award child support for the older child. The mother appealed. The court of appeals found that there is no statute that provides for support from a psychological parent. However, the court found that a psychological parent who has requested an allocation of parenting duties has the same rights and responsibilities as a legal parent, including the obligation to financially support the child. The court specifically limited its decision to this type of situation.
State v. Graham (Kansas 2019)
A parent who pleads guilty to criminal nonsupport cannot appeal the conviction without first filing a motion to withdraw the plea. In 2008, the father was charged with two counts of criminal nonsupport of a child. The father entered into a deferred prosecution agreement. In exchange for pleading guilty, the court stayed acceptance of the pleas as long as the father made child support payments. In 2010, the state moved to resume prosecution as the father had not made his payments. During the hearing, the defense counsel asked father why he hadn’t made payments. The state argued this was irrelevant and the only issue before the court was the father’s failure to comply with the agreement. The court convicted the father of the two counts. The father appealed, arguing that the court violated his right to equal protection by not hearing evidence as to his inability to make the payments. The court of appeals found that it didn’t have to address the merits of the case, as it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court of appeals explained that a defendant as no statutory right to appeal a guilty plea, only the sentence. A defendant must move to withdraw the guilty plea and can then appeal the denial of that order.
Vandenbook v. Vandenbrook (Mississippi 2019)
If a parent’s adjusted gross income exceeds $100,000, the court must make findings to support applying the guidelines. The father appealed the award of child support in the final divorce decree. The father earned more than $100,000 annually through a combination of salary, bonuses, and the exercise of stock options. To determine his adjusted gross income for child support, the chancellor averaged his income over four years and then applied the guideline percentage. The father argued the chancellor should have used his base monthly income to set child support, then awarded an additional amount based on any income above the base amount. The court of appeals found that the chancellor failed to make findings as to whether an application of the guidelines as reasonable and remanded the case. The father also appealed the award of retroactive support. The court of appeals found that the amount of retroactive support would be reviewed along with the amount of current.
Kaelter v. Sokol (Kansas 2019)
An order requiring a response to post-judgment discovery requests is not a final decision for purposes of appeal. The collateral order doctrine also doesn’t apply. The mother sent the father post-judgment discovery to determine his income and assets to aid in collecting child support arrears. The father didn’t answer the discovery, and the mother requested an order from the court. After hearing, the trial court ordered the father comply with the discovery requests. The father appealed. The court of appeals found that the order requiring compliance was not a final order and dismissed the appeal. It didn’t end the collection process. The father argued that the collateral order doctrine should apply. The court disagreed. It found that the order could be a ground on appeal once a final order is entered.
Watauga County v. Shell (North Carolina 2019)
A child support action doesn’t need to be stayed pending an appeal in a custody case. The mother and father were parties to a child custody case filed by their children’s paternal grandparents in Watauga County, North Carolina. While the final order from the custody case was on appeal, the Avery County child support program filed for child support from the father. The Avery County district court transferred venue of the child support action to Watauga County, and the cases were combined. The district court then entered an order staying the child support claim, which the child support office appealed. Subsequently, the custody case was resolved, and the district court entered a child support order. The court of appeals found that the district court should not have stayed the proceeding. The court of appeals found the two cases should not have been combined. It found that North Carolina statutes allow for child support to proceed even if a custody claim is on appeal. It also found the district court erred in entering a child support order while the stay order was pending appeal.
Simms v. Bolger (North Carolina 2019)
A lump sum payment is properly considered non-recurring income for child support, doesn’t necessarily require a deviation from the guidelines, and evidence is needed to show that making such a payment will impact future income. The father filed to modify his child support obligation. When support was established, the father’s income was a weekly workers’ compensation benefit. His weekly benefit stopped upon settlement of his claims. He received a substantial amount of money and deposited it into an investment account. His monthly income was the interest and dividends from this account. The mother also filed a motion to modify. The trial court’s final order increased monthly support, awarded the mother a lump sum payment from the investment account and set an arrearage amount. The father appealed on several grounds relating to the lump sum and the method of arrears calculation. The appellate court found that the lump sum payment met the definition of a non-recurring payment. The father failed to present evidence that the lump sum payment, which was to be taken out of an investment account, would impact his future income. The appellate court did reverse and remand the trial court’s calculation of the father’s arrears. The trial court calculated the father’s income for each individual year from the date of filing to the date of the decision, rather than using his income at the time of the decision. The appellate court found that without additional findings to support use of this method, this was an abuse of discretion.
State of Nebraska on behalf of Walter E. v. Mark E. (Nebraska 2019)
The existence of a juvenile court child support order divests the district court of jurisdiction to enter a second order. The State of Nebraska filed a petition in juvenile court for custody and placement of a child. The decree ordered the State to pay for all placement costs not covered by the parents’ insurance. The State subsequently filed a petition in district court to establish a child support order against the father. The referee’s report recommended the father pay support. The father took exception and filed a petition to dismiss. After a hearing, the district court dismissed the State’s petition finding that there was already an order in place and res judicata prevented entry of an additional order. The State appealed. The Supreme Court found that the district court had no jurisdiction to enter a support order. The Supreme Court found the juvenile court entered a support order, which was within its statutory ability. Therefore, the State had no jurisdiction to file for support in district court because the statute only allows such a petition when there is no existing support order. The Supreme Court found no need to apply res judicata.
Welch v. Peery (Nebraska 2019)
Any modification of child support or waiver must be in the child’s best interest. The mother in this case filed a petition for permission to move out of state, and the father opposed it. The mother testified she was willing to waive support so that the father could have additional money for travel. In the final order, the district court permitted the move and found that a modification of support was not properly before the court. The father appealed. The appellate court reversed the decision on other grounds, but upheld the decision not to modify support. The appellate court assumed the issue of support was properly before the court. The court found that father had a minimal support obligation and didn’t show that he couldn’t comply with the order. While the parents had discussed a waiver, the father failed to show how a waiver was necessary or in the child’s best interests.
Columbus County DSS ex rel. Moore v. Norton (North Carolina 2019)
A court should consider a parent’s income and assets to decide if the parent has the present ability to pay child support. The father appealed the court’s order finding him in contempt for failure to pay support. The trial court found evidence that he had the ability to pay support. He had income, he recently purchased two vehicles, and he held title to a home. His father paid his living expenses. On appeal, he argued that the property shouldn’t have been attributed to him. The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s decision. The court of appeals found the trial court properly considered all of the father’s assets and income.
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson (Mississippi 2019)
A prima facie case for contempt in a child support case is made once a parent entitled to support shows the other parent has not paid. Then, the burden of proof shifts to the paying parent to defend the nonpayment. The parents divorced, and support was set in the decree. They reconciled for a period of time, but broke up again. After the break up, the father stopped paying support and filed to modify custody. The mother counterclaimed for contempt for failure to pay support. The father argued he was overpaid because he supported the child during the reconciliation period above and beyond the amount he failed to pay. The chancery court found him in contempt, and he appealed. The appellate court agreed with the chancery court’s reasoning that no support was due while the parents were in a de-facto marriage. Once that relationship was over, support was due. The father showed no evidence of his inability to pay the support order.
