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.
Breining-Pruitt v. Westfahl (Nebraska 2019)
When calculating income for child support, a parent’s earning capacity can be used instead of their actual income. Earning capacity is determined from work history, education, occupational skills, and job opportunities. The father appealed a district court order which set child support. He argued the district court didn’t properly calculate the mother’s income. Testimony showed the mother was working 20 hours per week for $10 per hour. The minimum wage in the state where mother lived was $9.33 per hour. The district court figured her earning capacity for a 40 hour a week job at the local minimum wage. The father argued the court should have applied her current hourly rate of $10. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the numbers used to determine the mother’s income. The appellate court found that even if the district court had used $10 per hour, the difference was minor.
Hall v. Hall (Nebraska 2019)
A parent must provide specific evidence of income for child support but it can come from several sources. The mother filed a motion to modify custody and support. The district court denied the modification of custody and increased mother’s child support. It found mother’s income had increased and credited her with a fewer number of visitation days. The mother appealed the support modification. She argued that the father hadn’t presented evidence of his income, was voluntarily underemployed, and that the court used fewer days when crediting her for visitation for support. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appellate court found sufficient evidence of the father’s income. The father testified as to his income, he submitted an exhibit with a paystub attached, and both parents used the same figure in their proposed worksheets. Because the district court didn’t modify custody, the appellate court found it erred in crediting the mother with a different number of visitation days on the child support worksheet. It reversed for a recalculation of support.
Pruitt v. Pruitt (Tennessee 2019)
In order for a judgment to be set aside under Rule 60.02, there must be a material mistake of fact. A father who knows he is not a child’s biological parent, yet signs a paternity affidavit and agrees to pay child support in a divorce, is not operating under a mistake of fact. In this case, the mother and father had one child, who was born before their marriage. The father knew the child was not his biological child, but he signed a paternity acknowledgment. The parents later divorced, and the child was included in the decree as a child of the marriage. The father was ordered to pay support. The father later filed a motion to set aside the judgment, relying on various grounds of Rule 60. The trial court denied his motion, and he appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision. It found no merit to the argument that the child’s putative father was a necessary party to the action. The court noted that this proceeding was for divorce, not paternity. It also found no mistake of fact. The father had always known the child was not his, and he has voluntarily agreed to support the child. The court also found no violation of public policy. The court didn’t impose an obligation to pay support, the father agreed to pay.
Jones v. Jones (Mississippi 2019)
A parent cannot be found in contempt for failure to pay support and found to have overpaid child support at the same time. The parties divorced in 2006, and while a wage withholding was entered, it was never issued. The father paid support directly to the mother, twice a month. In 2009, a modified wage withholding was entered and issued. The father’s support was now paid every two weeks. The mother filed for contempt citing several grounds in 2014. The father had been in arrears until the issuance of the modified wage withholding. Under the modified wage withholding, he had overpaid. The chancery court found him in contempt for failure to pay child support, that he was overpaid, and gave him credit against the arrears for his overpayment. The father appealed the contempt finding. The court of appeals found that a parent cannot be held in contempt for failure to pay and have an overpayment. The appellate court reversed on this issue.
State of Tennessee ex rel. Moore v. Oden (Tennessee 2019)
If a judgment is missing from a record, it can be added later nunc pro tunc as long as the evidence supports that it was properly announced and not entered due to a clerical error. The parents in this case were never married and had one child. An initial support order was set in February 2005. Subsequently, the father appeared on several contempt actions. The father filed to modify his support in 2017. It became apparent that the Father’s support was based on an order from April 2005 that was missing in the record. The mother found the order and requested the trial court enter it nunc pro tunc. The trial court did and modified the father’s support. The father appealed. He argued that entering the order nunc pro tunc wasn’t appropriate. The appellate court disagreed. It found the subsequent orders had all relied on the April 2005 support obligation. The parties assumed it was in effect. The order was missing from the record due to a mistake by the trial court or the clerk.
McCall v. McCall (Mississippi 2019)
When divorcing parents agree a property settlement, including child support, the court will treat the settlement like any other contract. The parents in this case filed for divorce and signed a property settlement, in which they agreed to the amount of monthly child support and a lump sum child support payment. Subsequently, the father filed to modify. The mother counterclaimed for contempt for failure to pay. The chancery court denied the modification and found father in contempt for failure to pay. The father appealed. He argued that the child support didn’t comply with the Mississippi guidelines and that Mississippi law forbids lump sum child support payments. The court of appeals upheld the chancery court’s decision. It found that the father had not timely appealed the divorce decree, so any arguments about its terms were barred. Further, the father had agreed to a settlement, and any agreement he made outside the statutory guidelines was enforceable. The court of appeals also found the denial of the modification was appropriate. The father had lost his business, but he hadn’t been paying child support long before.
Beck v. Beck (Nebraska 2019)
To modify a child support order, a parent must show a substantial change of circumstances which occurred after entry of the most recent order and wasn’t contemplated when the order was entered. A change is a parent’s financial situation can qualify. The mother filed to modify the child support provision of the original divorce decree. She argued her income had decreased, and the father’s had increased. The district court denied her request. The mother appealed. The appellate court upheld the order. The appellate court found the evidence showed no substantial change. The evidence showed a decrease in father’s income. The father, a dentist, had brought in a partner and had sold an interest in his practice. He was still working the same amount, but under a different arrangement. Even with the decrease in come, he wasn’t seeking to lower his support. The evidence showed that the mother was earning less, but she was also working fewer hours.
Final Implementation Findings from the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED) Evaluation
In FFY 2012, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) funded a demonstration grant project, the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Demonstration (CSPED), to gauge the effectiveness of child support-led employment programming for noncustodial parents. Eight states received grants. This report documents the design and implementation of the different programs and identifies best practices for and barriers to implementation of the programs.
Characteristics of Participants in the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED) Evaluation
This report identifies the common characteristics of non-custodial parents who participated in programs funded through the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED) grant. The CSPED grant funded interventions designed to assist noncustodial parents who were behind in support and struggling to find employment. This report analyzes the data obtained from baseline surveys to identify the common characteristics of the parents enrolled in this program so that this information can be used for future development of policy and programs.
Bryson L. v. Izabella L. (Nebraska 2019)
The appellate court only has jurisdiction over timely-filed appeals. The mother and father divorced in November 2016, and the father was awarded custody of the child. In September 2017, an alleged father filed to intervene in the divorce action, stating he was the child’s biological father. The district court denied his motion. The alleged father filed two motions to vacate/amend the order, both of which were denied. The alleged father then appealed. The Supreme Court found it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the father had not timely filed the appeal. The appeal time began to run from the date of the order denying the father’s first motion to vacate/reconsider. His second motion was not filed timely, so it had not reset the appeal clock. Because the father relied on the date of the denial of the second motion, his appeal was too late.
