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.
Grace v. Grace (Tennessee 2022)
In January 2017, the parties registered a Kentucky decree of divorce in Tennessee. In 2020, the father asked to modify the visitation schedule, and the mother counter-petitioned to modify support. Specific to support, the trial court entered a judgment for arrears due under the Kentucky order from January 2014 – December 2016. It then modified support, effective January 2017. The trial court denied the mother’s request for pre and post judgment interest. The mother appealed the order’s child support provisions. The appellate four affirmed in part and reversed in part. First, the appellate court considered the effective date of the modified support order. Modifying support effective January 2017 violated the rule against retroactive modifications. The new support amount couldn’t take effect prior to December 2020, the filing date of the counter petition for modification. Next, the mother appealed the denied of her request for pre and post judgment interest. Under Kentucky law, the mother was entitled to interest for the payments due under the Kentucky order and the order was remanded for a calculation of the interest. However, for the payments due under the Tennessee order, the trial court had discretion to award prejudgment interest. The trial court found the mother’s own actions let to a delay in the proceedings and declined to award interest and the appellate court found no error in this reasoning. Finally, the mother appealed the income calculation. The appellate court found no error. For the father, the trial court used the income he provided on his parenting plan. For mother, the trial court used the evidence provided during the trial.
Williams v. Williams (Kansas 2022)
Parents have a proactive duty to disclose a material change in financial circumstances. If this change isn’t disclosed, sanctions may be imposed. In this case, the father filed to modify support based on a reduced income. In the process, it came to light the father failed to disclose a substantial increase in income for a three-year period. In its final order, the trial court modified support and imposed a sanction for the failure to disclosure the change in income. The sanction was to be the amount of support that the father should have paid during the three-year period less the amount he actually paid. The father’s income was high enough that calculating support meant an application of the extended income formula. The father filed two motions to reconsider, both of which were denied. He appealed. The father’s first argument on appeal was that the modification order resolved all child support issues and sanctions could no longer be imposed. The appellate court disagreed. Child support and sanctions for not disclosing income are two separate issues. While related, they are independent. The appellate court also found the sanction award reasonable. The father argued the extended income formula was for setting child support, not for calculating sanctions. The appellate court found no merit to this argument. The sanction award was what he should have been paying for support during the three-year period.
In the Matter of the Parentage of A.K. (Kansas 2022)
When there are two competing presumptions of paternity, the court must determine which presumption if founded on the weightier consideration of policy and logic, including the best interests of the child. This child in this case has two possible legal parents, A.M., who was in a relationship with the child’s mother at the time of the child’s birth, and Q.K., a stepparent. A.M., by her actions, notoriously recognized parentage at the time of the child’s birth. Q.K. was a presumptive parent because he married the child’s mother and added his name to the child’s birth certificate as her father. The district weighted a variety of factors to determine parentage including the child’s relationship with a sibling, a history of domestic violence between the mother and A.M., Q.K’s financial support of the child, and others. The final order found Q.K. to be the child’s legal parent. A.M. appealed. She argued Q.K. couldn’t be a presumptive parent because his intent to be a parent didn’t exist at the time of the child’s birth. The appellate court found the plain language of the presumption that applied to Q.K. didn’t include a time limit. The appellate court recognized A.M.’s presumption was in place long before Q.K.’s and found the timing of the presumption is a factor to consider. The trial court followed the proper procedure to weigh the presumptions and the appellate court found no error in its analysis. A.M. also argued the Kansas Parentage Act violated her right to equal protection. The appellate court found no merit in this argument. She wasn’t precluded from establishing a presumption. The presumptions are of equal importance.
Parents’ Reflections on Their Experiences with the Child Support Program in the Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt Demonstration
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement funded the Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC) grant to explore the use of the principles of procedural justice during enforcement with the intent of improving the regular receipt of child support payments. This brief compiles information received during interviews of parents who received PJAC-informed services and parents who received regular services. Interviewers asked the parents about their background (employment, payment history, contact with children), their communication with the child support agency, the enforcement actions on their case, and their impressions of the child support program.
In re Jonathan S. (Tennessee 2022)
A parent who requests a modification must prove a significant variance exists in the support obligation. When imputing income, the court must consider the statutory factors. The father requested a modification of child support. The trial court found the mother voluntarily underemployed and imputed income to her at the rate of her former job, which was in a different city. The mother appealed. The appellate court reversed. First, the father never actually alleged a significant variance in support and the trial court didn’t conduct a proper analysis. Second, the trial court didn’t properly determine the mother’s income. The record supported the determination she was voluntarily underemployed. However, the trial court didn’t apply any of the statutory factors to determine her income, including considering her current residence, job skills, and the local job market. Instead, the trial court imputed income from her prior job, which was two hours away from her current residence. This was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
A Comparison of Approaches Informed by Procedural Justice and Traditional Enforcement in the Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt Demonstration
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement funded the Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC) grant to explore the use of the principles of procedural justice during enforcement with the intent of improving the regular receipt of child support payments. Parents in the selected agencies were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one receiving PJAC services and one that applied traditional enforcement methods. This report compares the experiences of these two groups. Findings include: some elements of PJAC principals were already present in traditional enforcement but were applied consistently or regularly; the use of services such as modification, license reinstatement, etc. increased slightly in the PJAC group; and contempt filing decreased dramatically in the PJAC group.
Exploring the Long-Term Effects of Child Support
This paper studies the long-term effects of the receipt of child support, specifically the impacts on recipients earning capacity, employability, receipt of benefits, and participation in the child support program as adults. The study supports the proposition that the receipt of child support helps adults overcome economic disadvantage by increasing earnings and employability. The study results support policies such as right sized orders, which promote regular payment of support and underscore the importance of payments.
A Helping Hand over Heavy Hand: Child Support Enforcement in the Era of COVID-19
The COVID-10 pandemic made enforcing child support orders, already difficult, even harder. This article explores the decisions made about how and when to enforce an order during the pandemic and the factors that influenced those decisions. The authors interviewed child support agency leadership, frontline workers, attorneys, and judges or family court administrators from five Wisconsin counties. The article presents their perceptions of how the pandemic affected parent’s ability to work and make payments, the changes in administrative and judicial enforcement practices because of the pandemic and why the changes happened, and the most effective enforcement practices used during the pandemic and expectations for future changes in enforcement practices.
Berens v. Berens (North Carolina 2022)
The prohibition again retroactive modifications of support only applies to past due support. This divorce proceeding, specifically the setting of child support, in this case was prolonged. The father filed to modify the child temporary support order, while the entry of the permanent order was on appeal. The appellate court affirmed the permanent child support order. In the latest appeal, the mother appealed the modification of the permanent order. The father filed to modify based on the emancipation of a child. The trial court modified the order and retroactively reduced the child support amount back to the date of the child’s emancipation, which resulted in a large overpayment. On appeal, the mother argued this violated the rule against retroactive modifications. The appellate court disagreed, finding the statutory language only applies to past due obligations. The father never had a past-due obligation. He had paid all child support as ordered. The appellate court acknowledged potential issues with its position but found the purpose of the statute is to prevent the modification of past-due support. The mother also argued the evidence didn’t support the trial court’s determination of her income. On this issue, the appellate court agreed. The mother, a real estate broker, split her commissions with other brokers and her company. The appellate court found her income calculation didn’t reflect this practice. The appellate court vacated and remanded the order for further findings as to her income and business expenses.
Kubica v. Morgan (North Carolina 2022)
A court has jurisdiction to hear a claim for child support within a child custody proceeding. The father filed to modify custody. The modified order granted primary physical custody to the mother. She then filed a motion to modify child support. The father filed to dismiss the motion, arguing the court had no jurisdiction to hear child support within a custody proceeding. The trial court denied the motion. The father appealed, arguing the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the child support issue. The court of appeals affirmed. The North Carolina statute that governs custody and support clearly allows for both issues to be addressed in one civil action. While the statute lists different ways an action for custody and support can be brought, it is not an exhaustive list.
