Welcome to the YoungWilliams Research & Case Law Library.  Use the filters below 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: Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Wyoming.  Sign up to receive updates by clicking the blue  box at the left of the page.

Disclaimer:  YoungWilliams does not endorse the reports or opinions expressed by non-YoungWilliams authors, nor do we endorse the entities that initially released or published the materials posted on our website.

 

Research & Case Law

State on behalf of Elijah K. v. Marceline K. (Nebraska 2020)

August 2020

When a paternity action is brought by the state on behalf of a child, retroactive support can go back to the birth of the child. The right to retroactive support belongs to the child. The mother appealed an order of the district court setting current child support but denying her request for support retroactive to the date of the child’s birth. The district court ordered support retroactive to the first day of the month following the filing of the petition. The appellate court affirmed the order. The state filed this action on behalf of the child. Neither parent could file because the four-year statute of limitations had passed for them to file in their individual capacities.

Madrigal v. Madrigal (Kansas 2020)

August 2020

The decision to apply the extended income formula is discretionary. A district court entered an order increasing the father’s child support obligation and ordering sanctions against him for failing to disclose a material increase in his income. The district court applied the extended income formula to determine support. The father appealed arguing the order lacked findings to support the application of the extended formula and that the sanctions should be reduced to reflect the earliest time he could have known about the income increase.

Griffin v. Griffin (Tennessee 2020)

August 2020

The trial court’s determination of child support will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The father appealed a decree of divorce awarding primary custody of the children to the mother, dividing the marital estate, and calculating support. Specific to support, the father argued the trial court didn’t calculate each parent’s income correctly. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the determination of the mother’s income.

State v. Andreasen and Henley (Nebraska 2020)

August 2020

A deviation in the amount of presumptive child support is allowed when applying the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate. Any deviation must be in the child’s best interests. The mother appealed an order denying her request to move out of state with the child, granting physical custody to the child to father, and ordering her to pay support. Specific to child support, she argued the trial court abused its discretion in not deviating from presumptive support for her other children, extended parenting time, and transportation costs. The appellate court affirmed the order.

Hobbs v. Golden (Nebraska 2020)

August 2020

Evidence must support the amount of income that a court attributes to a parent. The mother filed to modify custody and child support for one child. Specific to the child support issue, the father was a plumber. He testified that he earned an hourly wage or commissions, whichever was higher. A paystub entered into evidence showed he was more often paid commission than the hourly wage. The court calculated income using his hourly wage and gave the father credit for a subsequently born child and payment of health insurance premiums. The court didn’t give the mother credit for an additional child. Support was reduced. The mother appealed the final order.

Werner v. Werner (Nebraska 2020)

August 2020

To modify a support order, a parent must show a material change in circumstances that occurred after the entry of the latest order and that wasn’t contemplated upon entry of the order. The Nebraska order at issue in this case involved a split custody arrangement. The older child lived with the father, and the younger child lived with the mother in Minnesota. The mother was ordered to pay support until the oldest child reached the age of majority. Then, support would stop. The parents agreed that father wouldn’t pay support for the younger child so as to accommodate for travel expenses for visitation. The mother filed to modify the order.

Chalmers v. Burrough (Kansas 2020)

July 2020

A parent must substantially comply with the requirements in the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to register an out-of-state order for enforcement and modification. The father filed to register and modify a Florida child support order in Kansas. The father didn’t attach a copy of the Florida order, which was required in the statute. The mother didn’t file an answer within the required 20 days. The trial court registered and modified the order. The mother moved to dismiss the case, arguing the registration didn’t comply with the statutory requirements, which meant the trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted her motion.

In Interest of EQ and JQ (Colorado 2020)

July 2020

Only one court can set child support. The parents had two separate legal proceedings going on at the same time – one in juvenile court and a domestic relations proceeding. The juvenile court entered an order accepting the parents parenting responsibility agreement. Part of the stipulation was an agreement that child support would be addressed in the domestic relations action. The order also required the father to turn over three months of his social security disability benefit to mother for child support and name her as the payee of his benefits until further order. The father appealed arguing that the juvenile court had no jurisdiction over child support.

Toussaint v. King (North Carolina 2020)

July 2020

In a civil contempt hearing, the trial court must find that the parent willfully failed to comply with the support order and has the present ability to pay any purge condition. The parents in this case had a long history of litigation over child support. In this appeal, the father appealed an order finding him contempt and sentencing him to jail for 30 days. He could be released earlier upon payment of an amount towards his child support arrears. He made two arguments on appeal: the evidence didn’t support the finding that he had the ability to pay the order and the order lacked the required finding that he had the present ability to pay the purge payment. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Cadigan v. Sullivan (Mississippi 2020)

July 2020

Parents will be held to their extra-judicial agreements regarding child support. A Florida divorce decree awarded physical custody of the child to the father and set the mother’s child support. Several years later, the parents made an extra-judicial agreement that they would share custody of the child and not exchange support. The parties moved to Mississippi, and then, the child asked to live with his mother. Various pleadings were filed to register the Florida order in Mississippi and modify the custody and support provisions. The father wanted support enforced pursuant to the original divorce decree, which meant mother would have arrears. The final order awarded the mother custody, found that she was not in arrears, and set the father’s current support and arrears. 

Pages