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.
Thomson v. Holling (North Carolina 2018)
Specific evidence must support the income determination for a self-employed parent. The mother appealed the lower court’s income calculation for the father, who was self-employed. The lower court based its determination on father’s child support worksheet and testimony. The Appellate Court found that the evidence didn’t support the monthly income attributed to the father. He didn’t provide business receipts or an expense statement. He testified about several accounts that he used to pay expenses, but the decision didn’t address funds available in these accounts.
Dixon v. Dixon (Mississippi 2018)
A Mississippi statute gives courts discretion to emancipate a child and terminate child support under certain circumstances. A judgment on arrears clears a parent of contempt so as to allow for a modification of support but the parent still has to show a substantial change in circumstances. The father appealed the chancery court order that did not emancipate his daughter and denied his request for modification of support. The Court of Appeals upheld the order. The Court found the evidence showed that the daughter still relied on the mother for financial support even though she no longer lived at home. The Court found that the chancery court erred in not allowing a modification because the father had unclean hands. However, in the order, the court also explained that no substantial change of circumstances existed so as to merit a modification.
In re Michael J. (Tennessee 2018)
A copy of a genetic testing report is not eligible for judicial notice. This case involves a paternity action that was first heard in front of a magistrate, who ordered genetic testing. The results showed a 99.9% probability of paternity, and the magistrate entered an order. The father requested a rehearing before the juvenile court. The mother moved to admit a copy of the paternity report and father objected. The juvenile court took judicial notice of the paternity report filed in the earlier hearing. It upheld the paternity order. The appellate court found that taking judicial notice was an error, but a harmless one. Admitting a copy of the report was appropriate because father had not filed any written objection as required by statute.
In re Joel B. (Tennessee 2018)
It is appropriate to impute a parent to a higher income for child support when the parent voluntarily takes a lower paying job. The mother, an attorney, appealed the lower court’s order imputing a higher income to her. Mother practiced immigration law Tennessee, but then moved to California where she worked as a paralegal, earning significantly less. The appellate court upheld the lower court’s income determination. The mother chose to work as a paralegal and managed to take several vacations on her reduced income.
State on behalf of Mariah B. and Renee B. v. Kyle B. (Nebraska 2018)
A contempt finding requires that the parent willfully violate the court order. The parent must have the present ability to comply with the purge conditions. The father appealed a contempt order for failure to pay support. He argued that the nonpayment was not willful and that he couldn’t comply with the purge conditions. The Supreme Court upheld the order. It found that once the State proves the contempt, the burden shifts to the parent to show that the failure to comply wasn’t willful. The father in this case didn’t present any persuasive evidence. His testimony about his job searches was vague and unconvincing. The Court further found the purge conditions appropriate. The purge payment must take into account the parent’s present ability to pay and again, the Court found no evidence to indicate the father couldn’t comply with set amount.
Kanka v. Kanka (Tennessee 2018)
Child support can be based on a parent’s earning capacity if the court finds a parent willfully unemployed. The father appealed the order that found him willfully unemployed and imputed income to him in the amount of his salary from his previous job. The appellate court upheld the decision. When determining if a parent is willfully unemployed, the court must consider whether the choice to leave the previous job was voluntary or involuntary and the parent’s efforts to get a new job. The father had resigned from his job and signed a separation agreement that limited his options for future employment. He accepted a seasonal job at a much lower wage even though he had marketable skills.
Smith v. Doe (Mississippi 2018)
A party must move to set aside a final judgment within six months if the party is alleging misconduct by the other party as the grounds for the set aside. In the case at hand, the father and mother settled their divorce. The terms included a higher than guideline amount of child support and father assuming the majority of the child’s expenses. The father moved to set aside the divorce decree two years after entry, alleging the mother coerced him into settling. The lower court denied his motion, and he appealed. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision, finding that if the mother did commit misconduct, the father knew about it at the time he signed the agreement. He should have moved to set aside within the required six months.
Schurman v. Wilkins (Nebraska 2018)
Under the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines, child support abatements are discretionary. The father appealed the district court’s order that did not allow for an abatement in support during his summer parenting time. The appellate court found that the decision whether to abate is clearly left to the court. The district court considered evidence of the parties’ finances and support of the child and did not order an abatement. Under these circumstances, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in not providing for an abatement of support.
An Evaluation of the Oregon Parenting Time Opportunities for Children Grant: 1) Mediation; 2) Interactive Parenting Plans Center for Policy Research
In 2012, the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement made “Parenting Time Opportunities for Children” (PTOC) grant awards to five states. The grants were intended to: …improve the financial and emotional support of children in the child support system by increasing safe opportunities for them to build relationships with both parents. The parenting time grants focus on providing opportunities to create formal parenting time arrangements at the point of child support order establishment.
Oregon received one of the PTOC grants and proposed to use two distinct approaches to extending the opportunity to create a parenting time plan to parents with child support cases. One approach was the creation of a network of mediators who would provide nevermarried, low-income parents the chance to mediate a parenting-time agreement. The project was housed with Oregon’s child support system. The second approach was the development of an interactive web-based program that parents could use to generate a parenting plan. The Center for Policy Research (CRP) of Denver, Colorado, was retained to conduct a distinct evaluation of each approach that the Oregon Department of Justice pursued. This report presents the results of both studies
Kabasan v. Kabasan (North Carolina 2018)
The value of an annuity counts as income for child support purposes without regard to any penalties for surrender or early withdrawal. The father in this case appealed the trial court’s calculation of his income, which included the value of an annuity. The father appealed arguing that the court should have reduced the value to account for potential surrender charges and early withdrawal penalties. The appellate court disagreed and found this argument without merit and legal support. The father did not plan to surrender the account or take an early withdrawal so any charges were speculative.
