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.
County of Durham v. Hodges (North Carolina 2017)
Evidence of a parent’s ability to pay must support a contempt order. The father in this case appealed a contempt order arguing that the evidence showed he had no ability to pay support. The contempt order was a pre-printed form that didn’t contain any findings of fact. The appellate court found the order lacked the evidence necessary to support a contempt finding. During the trial, the county of Durham didn’t provide any evidence that father could pay the support. Two doctors testified that father could not work for medical reasons. This case also contains a procedural issue regarding the proper order to appeal. Two days after entry of the form order, the court entered a more detailed order. However, the father filed the notice of appeal the day after entry of the form order. The appellate court found the form order met the requirements for a final order and that father properly perfected the appeal. The second order was void for a lack of jurisdiction.
In re Ava B. (Tennessee 2017)
When calculating income for child support, capital losses apply only in the year in which they occurred and cannot be carried over into subsequent years. The father appealed the juvenile court’s calculation of his income. The father’s income varied, so the juvenile court averaged his income for several years. The juvenile court did not give father credit for capital losses that occurred from 2007 – 2009 in his adjusted gross incomes for 2013 and 2014. The appellate court upheld the juvenile court’s decision. It found that it would be unreasonable to carry over the capital losses for such a lengthy time. The appellate court noted that income is figured differently under the tax code and for a different purpose. The appellate court also found the mother’s decision to become a stay-at-home parent did not mean she was voluntarily and willfully unemployed.
Spires v. Simpson (Tennessee 2017)
In a wrongful death action, a parent, who seeks recovery for the death of a child yet owes child support for that child, cannot recover any proceeds until satisfaction of the child support arrears. The mother and father in this case married and had a child. The father left when the child was young, but the parents did not divorce, and there was no support obligation for the child. The father had four additional children and owed arrears on each case. The mother died, and the father filed a wrongful death action. The child’s adoptive father and the personal representative for the estate moved to intervene and have the father dismissed from the action. They argued that under the statute the father was a parent who owed a child support obligation so he couldn’t file an action or recover any proceeds until the arrears were paid regardless that the arrears were owed for other children. The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court found that this statute applies only when a parent seeks recovery for the death of child and owes support for that child. The Court found interpreting the statute otherwise was contrary to legislative intent and created an absurd result.
Multi-Site Family Study on Incarceration, Parenting and Partnering‒Research Brief
This brief presents findings on pre-and post-incarceration wages and child support participation in the five impact sites of the Multi-site Family Study on Incarceration, Parenting and Partnering (MFS-IP). Funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the study includes implementation and impact evaluations and qualitative and quantitative analyses of participants in programs providing services to incarcerated fathers and their families.
Child Support: An Overview of Census Bureau Data on Recipients
The national Census Bureau data show that in 2013, 13.4 million parents had custody of children under the age of 21 while the other parent lived elsewhere, and the aggregate amount of child support received was $22.5 billion. In 2013, almost 83% of custodial parents were mothers. Of all custodial parents, 48% were white (non-Hispanic), 25% were black, 23% were Hispanic, 16% were married, 33% were divorced, 38% were never married, 13% did not have a high school diploma, almost 20% had at least a bachelor’s degree, 50% worked full-time year-round, 29% had family income below poverty, and nearly 43% received some type of public assistance. In 2013, 2.6 million (40%) of the 6.5 million custodial parents with child support orders actually received the full amount of child support that was owed to them. The average yearly child support payment received by custodial parents with payments was $5,181 for mothers and $6,526 for fathers. These full or partial payments represented about 16% of the custodial mothers’ total yearly income and 9% of the custodial fathers’ yearly income. Compared to 1993 Census data, less child support was received by custodial parents in 2013 ($24.8 billion in 1993 versus $22.5 billion in 2013; in 2013 dollars). However, a higher percentage of those owed child support actually received all that they were due (36.9% in 1993 versus 45.6% in 2013).
Life After Welfare
This report, which includes a chapter on child support, examines outcomes of Maryland families who left cash assistance, focusing on their characteristics, employment and earnings outcomes, and the receipt of other public benefits. The main findings indicate that families’ financial situations improved after exiting Maryland’s Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA) program, compared with their circumstances before they came onto the program. Nonetheless, these families struggle to rise above poverty and maintain independence from cash assistance.
Among families who had a current support order for child support, 71% received a payment in the year after exit. These families received just under $1,800, representing an approximate 20% increase in median earnings ($8,154) however only 40% of families had an order for current support in the year after exit.
An Evaluation of the Kansas Child Support Savings Initiative
The Child Support Savings Initiative was developed and implemented by Kansas to help parents who owe child support pay off debt while also saving for their children’s higher education. Parents who meet their current support obligations and make deposits into college savings plans, known as 529 accounts, receive matching reductions in their child support debts.
Using behavioral science, MDRC designed and tested ways to improve parental participation. MDRC was able to confirm other research that it is difficult to encourage individuals with low and moderate incomes to save money, and that parents owing past due child support might face even greater challenges to saving. The results of this study suggest that there are limitations in marketing child savings accounts to parents who owe past due child support and, perhaps, to low-income parents in general.
Lasecki v. Lasecki (North Carolina 2017)
An unincorporated settlement agreement is a contract, and the agreed-to child support obligation can’t be modified based on a change of circumstances like a court-ordered obligation. The father appealed the district court’s decision not to reduce his support obligation based on his lower income. The appellate court held that a trial court is without authority to modify child support in an unincorporated settlement agreement. The agreed-to amount is presumed reasonable unless rebutted. It can be rebutted taking into account the needs of the children. Unless the parties agree, it can only be changed using a contract remedy, such as specific performance.
TSR v. State of Wyoming (Wyoming 2017)
As long as the process meets statutory requirements, a court may deviate from presumptive support for later-born children. The mother appealed the district court’s decision to deviate downward from presumptive support for a child born of the father’s current marriage. The district court calculated presumptive support for the parties’ child. The court then calculated the support amount for two children, the second child being the later-born child. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-37 provides a deviation for the responsibility of either parent for the support of other children, whether court ordered or otherwise. The court applied this provision and ordered support as the father’s share of the amount for two children. The Supreme Court upheld the decision. It found the Court followed the statutory procedure and made the correct findings.
Mitchell v. Moore (Mississippi 2017)
The dismissal of a paternity complaint is not a jurisdictional bar to the refiling of the complaint. In this heirship action, relatives of the deceased challenged his child’s status as his heir, arguing that the paternity order was void. The Department of Human Services filed the initial paternity complaint in 2007 and then dismissed it for lack of service. The Department filed again in 2008 using the same cause number. The relatives argued that the second action was an extension of the first action, and the order was void for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed. It found the first complaint was dismissed without prejudice and that a second complaint was properly filed. It didn’t matter that the complaints had the same cause number.
