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.
Johnson v. Dominick (Tennessee 2017)
The Tennessee child support guidelines provide that child support starts at the birth of the child and retroactive support must be set accordingly.* If a court deviates from the guidelines, it must make specific findings regarding the factors set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-311(a)(11)(A)(i-iii). Without these findings, the order is defective. The mother appealed the provision of the child support order that set retroactive support starting in the month following the filing of the Petition to Establish Paternity. The appellate court found the order didn’t address the statutorily required factors for deviating from the guidelines. The factors include: the alleged father’s knowledge of the child and his possible paternity, the mother’s intentional failure to notify the father about the child and his possible paternity, and any attempts at notice on the mother’s part. The Court remanded the case for entry of a compliant order.
*This statute was recently amended so that for orders filed on or after July 1, 2017, retroactive support can only go back five years from the date of the filing of the action unless good cause applies and a different award is in the interests of justice. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-311(a)(11)(G).
State ex rel. Schrita O. v. Robert T. (Tennessee 2017)
A mother has standing to bring a paternity action in juvenile court even if the child has a legal guardian. In this case, the grandfather of the child had been his legal guardian since birth. On appeal, the father argued that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to decide the claims because mother lacked standing to bring the action due to the guardianship. The appellate court disagreed. The appellate court found the evidence supported that the child lived primarily with the mother, even though the grandfather was his guardian. Regardless, the court found that Tennessee statute provides that the Department can bring an action for paternity without joining a parent.
Child Support Collections to Offset Out-of-Home Placement Costs: A Study of Cost Effectiveness
Families that experience out-of-home placement (OHP) of a child in the child welfare or juvenile justice system are disproportionately poor, and the reasons for OHP often stem from poverty. Because OHP is expensive, and society values parental responsibility, federal and state laws require that parents be referred to the child support system to help offset the cost of OHP through child support collections. This study explores practices around OHP cases in the child support system and adds to the small amount of existing research in this area. Specifically, the study looks at case data from the Minnesota child support program. This research recommends that the child support program not be used to help offset the cost of OHP by collecting obligations from resident parents.
Black v. Black (Mississippi 2017)
When a parent’s adjusted gross income exceeds $100,000 per year, the Court must make a finding as to whether the application of the guidelines is reasonable. The guideline child support award would be 20 percent of the parent’s adjusted gross income. The father in this case is a surgeon whose adjusted gross income is more than $100,000. The Chancery Court deviated upwardly from guideline support, and the father appealed. The appellate court found the findings in the order supported the deviation. The findings included that father’s income greatly exceeded $100,000, both parents wanted the children to maintain their lifestyle and attend private school, and that to make this happen, a deviation was necessary.
Roberts v. Roberts (Nebraska 2017)
The definition of income for child support is flexible, and the court has wide discretion on what to include and exclude as income. This case addresses a wide variety of issues with calculating income for child support. The district court properly excluded a housing allowance and danger pay from the father’s income but inappropriately included alimony as part of mother’s income. The father, an employee of the Department of State, lives in Turkey. The Department pays for his housing. The appellate court found that a housing allowance should not be included as income since the Department pays for his housing and there was no other evidence as to the value of the housing. The appellate court also found that the possibility of receiving danger pay was not enough to include this as income. The appellate court reversed the district court’s inclusion of alimony as income to the mother for child support. The appellate court noted that alimony is set after the child support award and it only makes sense that not to include it as income when modifying support.
Child Support Cases without Support Orders: Three-Year Outcomes
The authors reviewed a sample of cases in the Maryland child support caseload for which child support orders had not been established and examined the outcome of these cases over a three-year time period. They found that 60.9% of these cases closed within three years; 21.6% had established support orders with a median amount of $300; and another 17.5% remained open without a support order. Cases were most often closed because of lack of customer contact or cooperation.
Marshall v. Marshall (Nebraska 2017)
The definition of income for child support purposes is flexible and fact-specific, according to the Nebraska Supreme Court. This lines up with the equitable nature of child support proceedings. The trial court in this case split the difference between the parents’ proposed income for father. In overturning the appellate court decision, the Court found that while splitting the difference is not ideal, it happens regularly when there is conflicting evidence. The trial court is in the best place to evaluate the evidence and the witnesses. The Supreme Court found the appellate court did not give weight to the trial court’s concern about the father’s conflicting and confusing evidence. In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the father’s income in this fashion.
Drabbels v. Drabbels (Nebraska 2017)
The court should not include employer-paid health insurance as income to a parent for child support. In this case, the father’s employer pays the health insurance premium for the father and the child. The district court included this cost in the father’s monthly income but did not give him credit for the premium amount off his monthly support. The father appealed. The Appellate Court found that since the employer paid the premium, it should not be included in the father’s income. This resolved the issue of providing him credit off his support. The mother also appealed arguing that the father’s other fringe benefits, such as overtime, should have been included in his income. The appellate court found that there was no evidence to indicate the father received overtime regularly.
The U.S. Wage Garnishment Landscape: Through the Lens of the Employer
This is a follow-up to its initial 2014 wage garnishment analysis in a report entitled, Garnishment: The Untold Story. For its most recent analysis, the ADP Research Institute used aggregated, anonymous 2016 payroll data of 12 million employees. The study found that child support continues to be the top reason for wage garnishment (also known as income withholding.) The analysis shows garnishment rates by industry, by type, age group, gender, wage range, company size, and industry.
Garnishment: The Untold Story
The ADP Research Institute analyzed aggregated, anonymous 2013 payroll data of 13 million employees. Child support was found to be the top reason for wage garnishment (also known as income withholding). The ADP RI learned that that 7.2% of employees aged 16 years and over had their wages garnished, and of those employees whose wages were garnished, 3.4% were for child support. The analysis shows garnishment rates by type, industry, by age group, gender, wage range, company size, and industry.
