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.
Catawba County ex rel. Rackley v. Loggins (North Carolina 2017)
Catawba County ex rel. Rackley v. Loggins, No. 152PA16 (N.C. 2017). A court maintains subject matter jurisdiction to modify a child support order even without a formal motion for modification. The parents filed a modified voluntary support agreement and order in 2001. The father failed to pay current support regularly and was involved in many contempt proceedings. In 2014, the father moved to set aside this order as void because there had not been a motion to modify the parties’ original settlement agreement. The Appellate Court agreed, and the Mother appealed. The Supreme Court found that the lower court has continuing jurisdiction over the child support issues, the statute does not contain a prerequisite that would deprive the court of jurisdiction, there was no legislative intent to create a jurisdictional prerequisite, and the statutory provision requiring a motion to modify is directory rather than mandatory. The Supreme Court also found that it inappropriate to construe the statute so strictly as to require the filing of a motion.
Sarno v. Sarno (North Carolina 2017)
North Carolina courts must follow the statutory process for deviating from presumptive child support. The mother appealed the court’s deviation from presumptive support arguing that the court failed to make the required findings. In North Carolina, the court can consider a deviation after determining the presumptive support amount, considering evidence regarding the child’s need for support and the parent’s ability to provide support, and weighing whether the presumptive support amount meets the child needs or is unjust or appropriate. If the court deviates, it must make specific findings as to each of these elements. The appellate court found the support order did not include the necessary findings and remanded the case.
Scobey v. Scobey (Tennessee 2017)
A parent must present evidence of their most recent actual income when determining income for a child support modification. The father requested a modification of his support and used outdated income information to calculate the new obligation. The trial court denied the modification and the appellate court upheld the decision. The appellate court found the one paystub father presented did not accurately reflect his current or future income and that his testimony was erroneous and unreliable.
Nudging Changes in Human Services: Final Report of the BIAS Project
This is the final report (2017-23) of the Behavioral Interventions to Advance Self-Sufficiency (BIAS) project conducted by MRDC under a contract with the federal Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) in which 15 state and local agencies participated. The project consisted of identifying problems that are appropriate for behavioral interventions, designing interventions, and conducting rigorous tests — where appropriate — to determine whether the interventions improved outcomes. These tests spanned three domains: child support, child care, and work support. The problems of interest in the area of child support included increasing order modification requests by incarcerated noncustodial parents in Texas and Washington and increasing payment rates on existing child support orders in two Ohio counties.
Low-income and Never-Married Families: Service and Support at the Intersection of Family Court and Child Support Agency Systems
This report describes the challenges child support enforcement agencies face with respect to the adversarial nature of their processes, and the poverty, unemployment, and other barriers to the economic security of poor and never-married parents who comprise the child support caseload.
In re Grace N. (Tennessee 2017)
This is the second appeal of this case. The parties appealed the child support calculation in the first order and are now appealing the calculation in the amended order. The Mother appeals the trial court’s calculation of the Father’s income with respect to the proceeds of a property sale and barter income, the court’s exclusion of cell phone fringe benefits and musician income, and the court’s decision to impute income to her. The appellate court found no error in the calculation of Father’s income for the property sale and the barter income. However, the trial court should have included the fringe benefit and the other income. No income is too small to include if it meets the definition of income. The appellate court also upheld the income figure the trial court imputed to the Mother. She is a licensed attorney whose income has steadily declined. The trial court considered her income in previous years and her conscious decision not to work. The appellate court found the trial court properly balanced. There was a timeframe issue so on remand the court must ensure it imputes income for the right period of time.
Williams v. Williams (Tennessee 2017)
Tennessee statutes require that an initial support order contain a judgment for retroactive support or findings to support deviating from the requirement. In this divorce action, the court awarded primary custody of the children to father. The court ordered no current support because mother was receiving social security. Prior to the custody order, the children lived with their mother. The divorce decree did not award retroactive support or include the findings required for a deviation. The appellate court remanded the case for calculation of retroactive support.
Copeland v. Copeland (Mississippi 2017)
A court can terminate child support when the children’s clear and extreme behavior makes the parent-child relationship impossible. The father, the non-custodial parent in this case, petitioned the chancery court to award him custody of his children and/or for other general relief. The chancery court denied the modification but found the children’s behavior toward their father warranted terminating support. The children testified and the father presented emails and texts from the children that showed their animosity towards him. The mother appealed arguing that Court granted relief not requested, the children’s feelings about their father were present at the time of the divorce, and that the evidence didn’t support the decision. The appellate court disagreed. The court found the prayer for relief addressed child support sufficiently or, even so, the court could have granted relief under the general prayer. The mother’s other issues on appeal also had no merit. The children’s testimony, emails, and texts showed a marked increase in the children’s hostility towards their father since the divorce.
In the Matter of the Paternity of S.M.J. (Kansas 2017)
In an indirect contempt proceeding, the individual must be physically present. If necessary, the Court can issue a bench warrant to compel attendance. The father in this case appealed a contempt finding that resulted from a hearing he did not attend, even though he had been properly served. The language of the indirect contempt statute provides the remedy for compelling attendance – a bench warrant. While the statutory language is permissive, the Appellate Court found this procedure is fair and complies with due process.
State on behalf of Lockwood v. Laue (Nebraska 2017)
In a contempt proceeding for failure to pay child support, a parent can rebut a presumptive finding with evidence showing the failure to pay was not willful. In a district court exception hearing, the court has the discretion to hear additional evidence. In this case, the state of Nebraska took exception to a referee’s dismissal of a contempt citation. The referee found that while the state met its initial burden of proof, the mother provided evidence to show that her failure to pay was not willful. She had been incarcerated, suffered from mental health issues, and was actively attempting to find a job. At the exception hearing, the state asked the district court to hear additional evidence. The State made an offer of proof but district court found the additional evidence irrelevant and upheld the dismissal. The appellate court agreed. It found the district had discretion to hear new evidence and properly found the offered evidence irrelevant and cumulative. The appellate court further held that the facts supported the dismissal.
