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.
Gordon v. Gordon (Tennessee 2018)
Deviations from presumptive child support must be supported by specific reasons. In this case, the parents agreed to an upward deviation in child support in the initial support order. The deviation was for “the needs of the family, equity of the parties, and best interest of the minor children.” Later, the mother filed a petition to modify residential parenting plan. During the trial, the father testified that he believed the deviation was for child care costs. In the final order, the court ordered the father to pay half of the child care costs and entered a judgment. The father appealed. He argued the upward deviation in child support was meant to cover child support. The appellate court disagreed and found that child care was not given as a specific reason for the deviation.
Hill v. Hill (North Carolina 2018)
A trial court must be clear about its process in imputing income. The father appealed the court order that denied his request for a modification of child support and found him in contempt. The father was terminated from his high-income job and requested a modification in support. The father was unemployed for almost four years before finding a job at about half of his earlier salary. Even though father had no regular income, the trial court imputed income to father for the four years and denied his request to modify. The father appealed. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for additional findings. It found the trial court wasn’t clear as to the time periods for which it was imputing income and how it calculated the amount to impute.
Crews v. Paysour (North Carolina 2018)
On remand, a trial court may consider new evidence in a child support hearing. If it doesn’t, the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the order must be based on the existing record. The appellate court remanded the initial order in this case for further findings. During the hearing on remand, the trial court didn’t hear any additional evidence. The mother appealed the new order. She argued that since the trial court didn’t hear any new evidence, any findings as to events after the initial hearing weren’t supported by evidence. She also argued that the order didn’t address all of her claims and contained mathematical errors. The Appellate Court remanded the order for the second time. It didn’t rule on the substance of the arguments because it found the trial court may have not correctly understood the legal standard for child support in high income cases. It agreed with the mother that the order contained mathematical errors and didn’t address all of her claims.
Burgess v. Williamson (Mississippi 2018)
A parent cannot challenge the court’s jurisdiction over an initial order in subsequent proceedings. The father, the custodial parent, filed a motion to hold mother in contempt for failure to pay support. The mother filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Chancery Court denied the motion and entered an order finding mother in contempt, ruling that it retained jurisdiction, and setting a judgement for arrears and attorney fees. The mother appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order. It found that mother failed to develop a clear argument regarding jurisdiction. If she meant to challenge the court’s jurisdiction to enter the original order, she was barred by res judicata.
Hotz v. Hotz (Nebraska 2018)
The Nebraska child support guidelines exclude alimony from the definition of income for child support purposes. The father appealed a district court order that modified the mother’s support obligation to him and granted her other requested relief. The father argued that his alimony obligation should have counted as income to the mother and that depreciation should have been excluded from his income. This appeal went directly to the Supreme Court. The Court explained that in an initial support order, alimony is determined after support is set, so it isn’t included as income. The Court acknowledged that the guidelines don’t specifically exclude alimony as income. However, the Court reasoned that including alimony as income after it is set opens up all initial support orders with both alimony and support to immediate modification. The Court found that the father didn’t provide the necessary documentation to prove he was entitled to a deduction for depreciation.
DeFacto Parent and Non Parent Child Support Orders
Recently, state laws have recognized this parental right of “care, custody, and control” to opposite sex unmarried couples who bore the child of sex. Even more recently, state laws have recognized this parental right for those who did not engage in sexual intercourse leading to a pregnancy and birth. State laws have also increasingly limited this childcare right of traditionally recognized parents by allowing nonparents to secure court-ordered childcare over the objections of current parents, whether by recognizing these nonparents as de facto parents or as third parties with childcare standing. While state childcare law opportunities have evolved significantly as family structures, genetic testing, and assisted reproduction techniques have changed, the laws on parental and nonparental child support have not changed much. This article explores actual and potential child support laws arising from the new childcare laws for both parents and nonparents.
Simplify, Notify, Modify: Using Behavioral Insights to Increase Incarcerated Parents’ Requests for Child Support Modifications
This report, part of the Behavioral Interventions to Advance Self-Sufficiency (BIAS) project, presents findings from a behavioral intervention, developed in collaboration with the Washington State Division of Child Support (DCS), to increase the number of incarcerated noncustodial parents in Washington who apply for modifications to reduce the amount of their child support orders. Incarcerated noncustodial parents have a limited ability to pay their child support orders each month, due to their incarceration, which can lead to the accumulation of significant child support debt.
Actual Earnings and Payment Outcomes Among Obligors with Imputed Income
Income imputation results in a financial support order, which is necessary to ensure that children receive support from both parents. But what are the payment outcomes in these situations? This report uses the sample of orders from Maryland’s 2011 to 2014 case-level guidelines review to assess outcomes of imputation on payment compliance. It compares obligors who had their incomes imputed at the full-time minimum wage rate to those who did not.
Clark v. Clark (Nebraska 2018)
The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) gives a court with proper subject matter and personal jurisdiction the ability to determine a controlling child support order. The father in this case was subject to two child support orders, one from Wisconsin and one from Nebraska. He filed a petition requesting a Nebraska district court vacate and modify the Nebraska order. He later amended the petition to request a determination of controlling order The district court dismissed the petition, finding that it was without jurisdiction to make the determination and that it didn’t have enough evidence to make the determination. The appellate court reversed the decision and found that UIFSA provides for this very situation. UIFSA gives the court subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a child support order of the state. The court also had personal jurisdiction over these parties. The father was a resident of the Nebraska. The mother, a non-resident, responded to the pleading by mailing a document to the court, and in doing so, subjected herself to jurisdiction. The court further noted that UIFSA authorizes courts of different states to communicate with each other to resolve these cases. The Nebraska court can contact Wisconsin to obtain any evidence necessary to resolve the issue.
States Leading the Way: Practical Solutions That Lift Up Children and Families
This is a link to Ascend at The Aspen Institute website where this report can be downloaded. The report “profiles effective solutions from Ascend partners throughout the United States and the work driven by leaders in Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Utah. It contains recommendations on processes that lead to better outcomes for families, lessons learned on engaging and bringing families to the table as empowered experts, and information on how to move to the next level whether you are starting your 2Gen journey or working to go deeper.”
