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.
Peterson v. Peterson (Nebraska 2018)
Alimony shouldn’t be counted as income for child support during initial establishment. The district court entered a final divorce decree, which established child support and alimony. The father requested a new trial. The district court considered his arguments, one of which was to include the alimony award as part of the mother’s monthly income for child support. The district court agreed and entered an amended order. The father appealed the amended divorce decree citing a number of issues, but the appellate court affirmed the order. However, during its review, the appellate court found it was plain error to include the alimony as part of mother’s income. The court modified the amended order, going back to the income calculations in the initial divorce decree.
State v. McColery (Nebraska 2018)
Appearance bond funds held by a clerk of court are not personal property registered with a county office for purposes of the child support lien statute. An automatic lien does not attach to these funds. A father, who owed child support arrears, was arrested for strangulation. He posted an appearance bond. He hired private counsel and as part of his attorney’s compensation, he assigned the bond funds. The attorney filed the assignment with the county clerk. Subsequently, the child support program also filed a lien against the funds. After an initial appeal, the District Court ordered the funds be paid to the child support program. The attorney appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court found that an appearance bond is not registered personal property subject to an automatic lien for child support. The State argued for a broad definition of registered, which the Court did not adopt.
In re Marriage Heine (Colorado 2018)
When parents voluntarily agree to a change in custody, the statute allows support to be modified back to the date of the change. A court has discretion to terminate or modify support for the obligor and establish support for the new obligor. The parents in this case voluntarily changed custody of their children several times. This case came about because of the latest change. The father had both children and then the parents agreed to each take a child. In the hearing to modify support, the court ordered the mother to pay support for the period of time that father had both children, then calculated the new shared custody support. To calculate support, the court imputed income to the mother because she was unemployed. The mother appealed. The Court of Appeals agreed with the mother that the lower court improperly imputed income. The Court found the order didn’t specifically find her underemployed or avoiding her child support obligation. The Court upheld the award of retroactive support. The court acknowledged that generally the effective date of a modified child support order is the filing date of the modification petition. However, the statute provides that if there has been a voluntary change in physical care, the date of the change in care is the effective date. The statute also gives courts discretion to modify the support of either parent, regardless of their status as obligor or obligee.
Martin v. Hart (Wyoming 2018)
A child support order must state the amount of presumptive support. If the court deviates from the presumptive amount, it must give specific reasons. The father filed to establish paternity, custody, and visitation of the child. In the final order, the court stated it was deviating from presumptive support without giving a presumptive amount. The deviation was for the cost of insurance and the father’s other child. The mother appealed. She argued that the court should not have deviated from presumptive support for either of the listed reasons. The Supreme Court reversed the child support order but for another ground. The Supreme Court found that the district court failed to specify the presumptive support amount and that it couldn’t figure out the presumptive support amount based on the evidence in the record. On remand, the Court encouraged the district court to receive and consider evidence to support any deviations.
Bruton v. Bruton (Mississippi 2018)
If a child support award is above the guideline amount, the Court must justify the award. In his case, the original divorce decree required the father to pay support plus day care and 60 percent of the children’s private school tuition and fees. Two years later, the father filed for a modification. The modified order increased his support pursuant to the guidelines, and after hearing a variety of motions, decreased the percentage of tuition that he was obligated to pay. The father appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the child support portion of the order. It found that the child support ordered from his income was the guideline amount, however, the father was also ordered to contribute to tuition on top of that. As tuition is considered part of child support, the total child support award was an upward deviation from the guidelines. The Court found the Chancellor considered appropriate factors to support an upward modification.
Pettersen v. Pettersen (Mississippi 2018)
The court has discretion to set support for the time period before a divorce is filed. If support is set, it can only go back to one year before the filing of the action. The parents in this case filed for divorce. They had three children, two of whom were emancipated, and one who was 19 at the time of filing. The court entered a temporary order granting the parents joint custody but did not set support. By the time the final decree was entered, the child was almost 21. The chancery court declined to set support for him. The father appealed the order arguing that the court should have set support for the duration of the divorce action. He also argued she should have been ordered the mother to pay support and part of the college expenses for the year before the complaint was filed. The Court of Appeals upheld the order. It found that that that the statute gives courts discretion with respect to awarding support for the time period before an action is filed. It also found the father didn’t argue about the lack of support set in the temporary order.
Osborn v. Anderson (Kansas 2018)
An annulment order doesn’t revoke a paternity acknowledgment without language to that effect. In this case, the father signed a paternity affidavit knowing that he wasn’t the child’s biological father. The father and mother married, but ended their marriage with a judicial annulment. The annulment order stated no children were born of the marriage. The child died, and the father filed a wrongful death action against the mother and other parties. After a series of hearings, the district court dismissed the suit, finding that the father had no standing. It found that the annulment revoked the acknowledgement. The father appealed, arguing he was the child’s legal father. The appellate court reversed the district court order. The court stated that while this wasn’t a paternity action, the court had to apply the Kansas Parentage Act to determine if the father had standing to bring the case. It found the annulment only set aside the marriage. The annulment order contained no language about setting aside the acknowledgment. The court further found that the mother had not filed an action to set aside acknowledgment in a timely manner.
Kendle v. Kendle (Tennessee 2018)
When determining if it can honor a garnishment notice, an employer has no obligation to consider any garnishments already in place with another employer. The father in this case had two employers. His wages from his primary employer were being garnished when the mother served a garnishment on his secondary employer for fees incurred due to his failure to pay child support. The secondary employer sent a notice stating that it could not honor the garnishment. The employer calculated his total net income from both employers and found that the amount to be withheld was greater than the allowable percentage. The district court found that the secondary employer had no obligation to consider the pre-existing garnishment and ordered that the secondary employer withhold 25 percent of the father’s net wages going forward. Both parties appealed. The father argued that his pre-existing garnishment should count. The mother argued that the employer should withhold the statutory maximum amount. The court of appeals found that employers have no duty to consider the amount of wages being withheld from other employers. Garnishees are only responsible for the property in their possession. The court further found that the statute gives the court the ability to order a garnishment up to 50 percent of the employee’s wages. The court’s order to withhold 25 percent was appropriate.
Millen v. Hatter (Tennessee 2018)
The Tennessee Department of Human Services (TDHS) issued an administrative order to garnish the father’s bank account for unpaid child support. In response, the father filed a document titled “Opening Complaint Asking for Injunctive Relief and Restitution for Kevin ‘The King’ Millen.” He served the bank and the TDHS Commissioner. TDHS filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The father appealed. The court of appeals upheld the dismissal. It found that TDHS has sovereign immunity and that the father had not demonstrated the state’s consent to the suit.
County of Durham v. Burnette (North Carolina 2018)
Evidence of a parent’s willful refusal to pay a child support order and ability to pay purge conditions must support a contempt order. The father had two child support orders, and the County of Durham initiated contempt proceedings on both orders. The court found him in contempt for failure to pay on both orders and set purge payments. The father appealed. He argued that the evidence didn’t support the findings that he could pay both orders and the purge payment. The court of appeals agreed with the father. The court of appeals found that the lower court didn’t consider the father’s living expenses and were too general to support that he had the ability to pay support or the purge payments. The order contained findings such as “The Defendant owns a boat” and “The Defendant spends money on food.” The findings weren’t further developed as to the value of any of his assets and didn’t reference testimony that the father gave that showed why he couldn’t pay his support. Further, the County didn’t offer any evidence to the contrary. Without more, the court of appeals found that these findings weren’t enough to support a contempt finding.
