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.
Tucker v. Tucker (Wyoming 2023)
The record must contain sufficient evidence to support the determination of income for child support. This modification case was initially brought by the State. The father then filed his own petition. After a lengthy period, the district court entered an order modifying the father’s obligation. The mother appealed. She alleged the evidence didn’t support the calculation of the father’s income. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The record didn’t contain evidence to support the determination of the father’s income. Parents are required to include their last two years tax returns and W-2s with their financial affidavit. The father only included one W-2. He claimed he was supported additional children but failed to identify them. The case drug on so long the district court ordered the parents to provide more current financial information. However, in making its final income calculation, the district court failed to address the incomplete financial records and inconsistencies in W-2 and the information provided on the affidavit. On remand, the Supreme Court instructed the district court to consider how best to calculate support when so much time has passed and to ensure any issues brought raised in the State’s petition were resolved.
Tolliver v. Tolliver (Mississippi 2022)
To modify child support, a parent must show a material change of circumstances that were unforeseen at the time of the original order. The father worked full-time and held several side jobs. Following a mandatory COVID-10 quarantine, he didn’t report back to work at his full-time stating he still had symptoms, yet he still worked at his side jobs. He was terminated and the letter noted he continued to work at outside employment while receiving paid sick leave. He requested a modification of his child support. The mother filed to dismss, arguing the father’s reduced income was due to his own actions. The chancery court granted the mother’s motion, and the father appealed. The appellate court affirmed. The father had to prove that his actions didn’t cause him to be fired. He failed to meet this burden. He violated his employer’s family and medical leave policy by working while receiving paid sick leave. The record contained sufficient evidence to support a determination of bad faith.
In re Nusz (Kansas 2022)
Evidence must support the determination of a parent’s income. In this divorce action, the mother appealed the child support portion of the divorce decree, arguing no evidence in the record supported the income determinations. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of the district court’s wide discretion in setting income for child support. The district court based its calculation of the mother’s income on her own, unamended documents: an agreed pretrial order, her domestic relations affidavit, and her proposed child support worksheets. She testified to a lower amount of income, but never amended her documents. The district court properly subtracted depreciation from the father’s gross income. The father was a self-employed outfitter. While the call was close, evidence showed the depreciation was a reasonable business expense. Further, the mother didn’t point to a specific error. The district also properly excluded agricultural assistance payments form his income. Even with the payments, the father’s farming operation operated at a loss.
In re Marriage of Flanders (Colorado 2022)
A caretaker, who receives parental responsibilities in a dependency proceeding, doesn’t necessarily qualify as a psychological parent for the purposes of child support. A dependency order gave a grandmother parenting responsibilities for her grandchild and ordered the child’s parents to pay support. After beginning regular visitation, the father filed to modify the order and requested the grandmother be considered a psychological parent who could be ordered to pay support, citing In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning A.C.H., 2019 COA 43 (Co. Ct. App. 2019). The district court modified the parenting time but declined to consider the grandmother a psychological parent. The father appealed. The appellate court affirmed, distinguishing A.C.H. In A.C.H., a stepparent, who had been involved extensively in a child’s life requested parental responsibilities of his stepchild in a custody action. The court clearly limited the holding. In this case, the grandmother received parenting responsibilities through a dependency action. She didn’t hold herself out as the child’s parent or request permanent custody of the child.
Nowell v. Stewart (Mississippi 2022)
The modification of a child support order requires an unforeseen change of circumstances. The parent requesting the modification bears the burden of proof. The mother filed to modify child support based on the increased cost of the child’s special needs. After a lengthy proceeding, the chancery court enterd an order increasing support. The chancery court found the child’s needs had increased and had extensive medical expenses. The chancery court made the modification retroactive and entered a judgment. The father appealed, arguing the court erred in using the child’s special needs as a reason to increase support and an increase in expenses was foreseeable due to the child’s special needs. The appellate court affirmed. The mother met her burden of providing the expenses were unforeseeable and presented evidence of the amount of the expenses. Evidence included testimony from the mother and the child’s doctor, financial statement, and the child’s educational and medical records.
In the Matter of the Parentage of N.P. (Kansas 2022)
A parent must move to set aside an order due to inadvertence or excusable neglect must do so within a year. At issue in this case is a child support order entered on September 24, 2018. On February 5, 2020, the father moved to set aside the order claiming mistake or inadvertence. The district court denied the motion. First, a claim of mistake or inadvertence had to be made with one year. The filing was outside this timeframe. Then, the district court found no mistake. The order was based on the parties’ agreement. The father appealed, and the appellate court affirmed. On appeal, the father argued clerical oversight or omission to get around the one-year limitation. The appellate court held the father to the language of his motion, which claimed a mistake. His motion was subject to the one-year time limitation and was barred. The father also argued the trial court erred in not setting aside arrears and failed to consider other evidence about his income when calculating support. The appellate court affirmed on all grounds.
Denham v. Denham (Mississippi 2022)
The Mississippi child support guidelines base support on a parent’s current income. In this divorce case, the final decree ordered guideline support plus an amount for extra-curricular activities. The father appealed the divorce decree, arguing errors in the calculation of his income, the award of health insurance, and the additional money for extra-curricular activities. The appellate court affirmed the child support provisions of the decree. The chancery court correctly used his current income to calculate support. While the order didn’t specify the cost of health insurance, findings determined insurance was available to the parents and both had enough income to cover the cost. The appellate court also affirmed the award of money to cover extra-curricular activities. Evidence supported the award. The decree included findings stating the court’s preference to award money for extra-curriculars in cases where the parents had a contentious relationship in hopes of avoiding future controversy.
The Regular Receipt of Child Support: 2017
The results of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) tell a story about the receipt of child support in 2017. Specifically, this report analyzes the data on who received support, the amount received, and the frequency of receipt. Findings include: one-quarter of parents with children under the age of 21 who have a nonresident parent received support, the receipt of support is more likely if the parents have an agreement, about two-thirds of the parents received payment regularly, parents who weren’t married or with a higher level of education were more likely to receive support, and the median annual amount of support was $3,328.
Do Carrots Work Better than Sticks? Results from the National Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration
The results of the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED) grant may have been modest, but these types of programs will move the child support program forward. CSPED tested the effectiveness of alternative methods of enforcing child support orders: adjusting orders, reducing punitive enforcement, and offering employment services to parents. The results showed increased parent satisfaction with the program even though compliance, payments, and employment outcomes didn’t change. The results show potential for using the child support program as a means to connect paying parents with job opportunities.
Roth v. Roth (North Carolina 2022)
The North Carolina child support guidelines define gross income from self-employment or operation of a business as gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary business expenses required for self-employment or business operation. The father requested a downward modification of his child support based on the parent’s custody schedule. The final order modified support, upwardly. The father appealed, arguing the court incorrectly determined his income. The appellate court affirmed. The father challenged the trial court’s inclusion of certain categories of expenses in his gross income, including expense reimbursements and depreciation. The appellate court found the trial court made detailed findings as to its calculation of the father’s income and found his arguments unpersuasive. In his testimony, the father didn’t explain the expenses or why they should qualify as appropriate business expenses.
