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.
Parrish v. Griggs (Tennessee 2017)
In Tennessee, the obligation to support a child begins at birth unless there is a statutory basis for deviation. The deviation factors revolve around the father not knowing about the child or the possibility of his paternity. The appellate court reviews the support order for an abuse of discretion if appealed. In this case, the trial court awarded child support, retroactive to the date of birth, for a 14-year-old child. The father appealed the order, arguing that the mother told him the child was not his so he should not have to pay support back to the date of birth. The appellate court found his argument unpersuasive in that father knew mother was pregnant, knew the child was born, and saw the child. The father could have filed to establish paternity at any time after the birth of the child.
Vincent v. Rickman (Mississippi 2017)
If a parent willfully fails to follow the terms of a child support order, the court can find the parent in contempt. Contempt is appropriate if the order is final and the terms are clear. The appellate court upheld the contempt ruling against the father, finding that he failed to comply with the unambiguous terms of his child support order. He was ordered to implement income withholding, which he deliberately did not do. In addition, the court found him in contempt for failure to pay. The Father argued that his support was current by the time the contempt petition was filed. However, the court found that he had not paid support as directed in the order and had he complied with the income withholding provision, the arrearage would not have occurred.
State of Tennessee ex rel. Bass v. Gonzalez-Perez (Tennessee 2017)
Longshore and Harbor Workers’ benefits are exempt from income withholding; however, the receipt of these benefits does not excuse a parent from paying child support. A parent who fails to pay can be found in contempt. In this case, the father suffered a work-related injury and qualified for Longshoreman’s benefits. After the accident, his support amount was reduced, and he stopped paying altogether. The child support program filed for contempt, and the court found that the father willfully failed to pay his support. On appeal, the father argued that because he received non-garnishable benefits, his obligation to support the child stopped. In addition, he claimed to have no ability to pay. The appellate court disagreed and held that the benefits are a part of his available assets to pay child support. Since he received enough money each month to pay his bills and set aside money for repairs, he had the ability to pay his child support.
Sansom v. Sansom (Tennessee 2017)
The value of a house, given as a one-time gift, should not have been included in this parent’s gross income for child support. The trial court found that the house, under the facts of this case, could only fall into one income category – a gift that could be converted to cash. The trial court added a figure to the father’s monthly income that represented the value of the house, spread out over 30 years with a loan of 3.25 percent. The appellate court found that including the value, which was based on a hypothetical mortgage and speculative interest rate, was not appropriate.
State ex. rel. Smith v. Thorne (Tennessee 2017)
An appeal of a child support order set in juvenile court must be taken to the circuit court. In this case, the State appealed an order dismissing arrears to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal because the order originated from a dependency action in juvenile court.
Fisher v. Davis (Kansas 2017)
A final paternity judgment can be set aside if it is based on an error of law and no reasonable person would take the trial court’s view. In this case, the father signed a paternity acknowledgement based on the results of a home paternity test. The father filed a paternity action and a journal order of paternity was entered. The father took a subsequent home genetic test, which came back with the opposite result. He filed a motion to set aside the journal order and requested genetic testing. The trial court denied his motion citing the need for finality of judgments. The appellate court disagreed and found the trial court must balance the need for finality of judgments with the need for substantial justice and that, in any case, the result was not reasonable.
Nunnally v. Nunnally (Tennessee 2017)
In a child support case, the court must have reliable evidence of income above a parent’s regular wages in order to include it in the income calculation. The trial court in this case calculated the parents’ incomes using only their hourly rates even though they testified to additional monthly income. The appellate court found no reliable evidence of the additional income. The parents filed a post-trial stipulation which contained income figures, and the father argued the court should have used those figures. However, the trial court lost jurisdiction once the appeal was filed and could not consider an already-litigated fact.
Halim v. El-Alayli (Tennessee 2017)
A parent who requests more than the capped amount of child support must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the upward deviation is reasonably necessary to support the children. In this modification action, the mother requested child support plus additional amounts for the caretaker for a special needs child, camp, food, utilities, vacation, housing, and cheerleading expenses. The court awarded her the maximum amount of support for two children, plus money for the caretaker. The court noted that the child support guidelines factored in the other items for which mother requested additional money and that she had not shown the requests to be reasonably necessary.
Maher v. Woodruff (Tennessee 2017)
To calculate back child support, apply the guidelines that are in effect at the time of the order. The mother in this case appealed an award of retroactive child support and argued the trial court applied the wrong guidelines. Custody of the children changed from mother to father in 1999. The support amount was not set at that time, but was reserved. The father did not request support until 2015. At a hearing, the trial court applied the 1999 guidelines to figure the amount of back support. The appellate court agreed with the mother that the current guidelines should have been applied and cited Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1240-02-04-.06(3)(a), “[f]or the monthly BCSO [basic support obligation], apply the Guidelines in effect at the time of the order, using the Child Support Worksheet.”
State ex rel. Secretary for Dep’t for Children and Families v. Smith (Kansas 2017)
A Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity (VAP) binds the signers unless it is revoked in the statutory time period. It does not create a presumption of paternity, as the father in this case argued. The father also argued the VAP did not qualify as an acknowledgement because it lacked certain formalities and that the VAP did not bind him because he did not read the acknowledgement or understand the terms. His arguments did not persuade the Court. The Court held the signatures on the VAP did not have to be notarized and that the terms of the VAP bound the father even if he didn’t read it or understand it.
