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.
Contreras v. Contreras (Tennessee 2018)
A parent who fails to provide insurance as ordered may be liable to reimburse the other parent for the costs of premiums. The father appealed a district court order that ruled against the him on a variety of issues. The order entered judgments against him for arrears and for the cost of medical support premiums paid by the mother. The order also denied him credit for expenses that he claimed fell under the doctrine of necessaries. The Court of Appeals upheld the order. It found that the father failed to provide the insurance as ordered, so it was appropriate for the mother to find insurance. The Court of Appeals further found that father had the opportunity to dispute the arrears but provided no evidence of alleged payments.
Anderson v. Anderson (Nebraska 2018)
Courts have some flexibility in determining income for child support purposes. The father appealed the court’s determination of his monthly income for child support. The father owned a lawn care business. He testified that he cashed checks and received cash for services that he did not deposit in his bank account. He also testified that he had the ability to cover his monthly personal expenses. The court determined that the father’s monthly income calculation and tax returns did not fairly represent his income. Relying on his testimony that he covered his monthly expenses, the court set his income as the amount of his expenses. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision. It noted that courts have flexibility in determining income in that child support proceedings are equitable.
People in the Interest of D.C.C. (Colorado 2018)
Once a juvenile court declares a child dependent or neglected, the juvenile court has jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to that child, including paternity. The father appealed a juvenile court order dismissing him from a dependency and neglect action. The juvenile court dismissed the father based on a child support court order for non-paternity. The Court of Appeals found the child support court did not have jurisdiction to make a paternity finding in light of the ongoing dependency and neglect action. The Court found that the statutes give the juvenile court continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child who has been adjudicated dependent or neglected. The Court noted that parents receive greater due process protections in a dependency and neglect action.
Baucom v. Vlahos (North Carolina 2018)
A petition to modify a child support order must request specific relief. Otherwise, the terms of the underlying order do not change. The mother appealed a court order denying her request for reimbursement of uncovered medical expenses. The original divorce decree ordered the father to pay a specific percentage of the uncovered medical bills. A subsequent modification order did not address medical bills. The mother then filed a motion for reimbursement of medical expenses. The father argued he didn’t have to pay any uncovered medical expenses because the modified order didn’t address this issue, and this order superseded the original decree. The trial court denied the mother’s petition. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. It found that petitions to modify child support must plead for specific relief. This petition only requested a decrease in child support. Therefore, the remaining provisions of the original order, including the terms for payment of uncovered medical bills, remained in place.
Woodard v. Woodard (Tennessee 2018)
Courts have authority to establish support for a special needs child who is over the age of majority at the time of a divorce as long as the child became disabled before reaching the age of majority. However, if the initial order did not address support, it cannot be established later. The mother appealed a court order declining to establish support for a disabled child, who was over the age of majority. The appellate court upheld the order. It found the statute gives courts the authority to order support for disabled children who have reached the age of majority prior to a divorce during the initial divorce proceeding. However, support cannot be established after the fact.
The Story Behind the Numbers: Exploring Trends in the Percent of Orders for Zero Dollars
OCSE collects data from state child support agencies on the number of support orders that do not have a dollar support amount, referred to as zero orders. These may reflect different types of orders – medical support only, shared custody, arrears only, or current support with no amount due. Zero orders have been increasing over time within the child support program. Today, they represent 10% of support orders nationally. This Story Behind the Numbers explores this trend and examines why zero orders have become more common in the child support program.
Child Support Resource Guide for State IV-D Directors
This Guide was developed by OCSE as a reference to on-line resources useful to state child support directors, including links to federal laws governing the child support program and key federal regulations and policy documents. It also provides brief overviews of various components of the program. The federal OCSE organization chart is included along with contact information for each of the ten federal regional offices.
Tribal Child Support Directors’ Resource Guide
The Tribal Child Support Directors Resource Guide was developed by OCSE in collaboration with numerous tribal child support directors. The purpose of this handbook is to help orient new tribal child support directors during their first weeks on the job and to serve as a desk reference for both new and seasoned directors. It provides a broad overview of basic program information, federal requirements and policy, and practical advice and resources.
Shawn E. on behalf of Grace E. v. Diane S. (Nebraska 2018)
A garnishment order is not final unless it requires delivery of the debtor’s property to the creditor. The state of Nebraska initiated a garnishment action against the father’s prison account for arrears and past due medical support. After a hearing, the district court entered an order denying the father’s request for continuance, overruling his objection to the garnishment, and allowing that the garnishment “may proceed.” The father appealed this order. The court of appeals found the order was not final, so it lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed. It found that for a garnishment order to be final, it must order delivery of the debtor’s property to the creditor. At that time, the order affects a substantial right of the debtor and is appealable.
In re Marriage of White (Kansas 2018)
The requirement in the child support guidelines that medical support be addressed includes bills incurred, not only bills paid. The father appealed a district court order dividing medical expenses. He argued the court improperly considered bills presented by the mother for expenses incurred, but not paid. The court of appeals upheld the district court order. The appellate court found there was no prohibition in the guidelines against including expenses incurred and that there should be some latitude to consider the circumstances of a case and fashion reimbursement accordingly.
