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

Eicke v. Eicke (Nebraska 2021)

March 2021

Parents must be making a retirement deduction in order to receive credit in their adjusted gross income. In this divorce action, to calculate income for child support, the district court deducted a retirement contribution from both parents’ incomes even though neither parent was contributing. The district court also credited mother for the entire health insurance premium. She carried five people on the policy, including the parties’ three children, and the cost was the same regardless of the number of children. The final order awarded sole physical custody of the children to the mother and ordered father to pay support. The father appealed the final order.

State on behalf of Pierce K. v. Jacob K. (Nebraska 2021)

March 2021

An abatement of child support is discretionary. The father filed a contempt petition against mother for violating their parenting plan. He asked to be awarded custody of their child and for a modification of child support. The trial court granted the father’s petition, set a new visitation schedule, and ordered the mother to pay support. The mother appealed arguing the court erred in modifying custody and ordering her to pay support.

Lageman v. Lageman (Mississippi 2021)

March 2021

When a parent’s annual adjusted gross income exceeds $100,000, a court must make findings as to whether the application of the guidelines is reasonable. The final decree of divorce ordered the father to pay support in the amount equaled to twenty percent of his adjusted gross income. The father appealed arguing the amount was higher than the children’s expenses.

In re Ralph (Kansas 2021)

March 2021

Due process requires a modification filing include all statutorily required documents. In 2017, the father filed to modify child support but failed to include the required domestic relations affidavit (DRA) or child support worksheet (CSW). In her answer, the mother noted the missing documents. Father took no further action until 2019 when he filed again, this time including the DRA and child support worksheet. He requested support be modified retroactive to the date of the 2017 filing. He argued equity demanded he be given credit for child support. The trial court modified support prospectively but denied his request for retroactive support. The father appealed.

Scott v. Scott (Kansas 2021)

March 2021

Incarceration is one factor to be considered when modifying a child support order. The father, who was incarcerated in the federal penitentiary, filed to modify his support prospectively and retroactively. He asked the court to calculate retroactive and prospective support based on actual income. The district court denied his motion. He appealed.

State ex rel. Moody v. Roker (Tennessee 2021)

March 2021

A ruling in a final order must be supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. The mother, a Georgia resident, used the child support program to establish paternity and support pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. The father was incarcerated in Tennessee. The father filed numerous pretrial motions. Significant to this appeal, he filed a motion to participate in the hearing and for transportation. The trial court held a hearing, which was attended by the child support attorney.

Lillard v. Lillard (Tennessee 2021)

March 2021

Child support can continue for beyond the age of 21 for children who are severely disabled; living under parental supervision, which is in the child’s best interests; and the obligor has the financial ability to pay support. The mother petitioned the court to modify child support and declare the child severely disabled. At hearing, the mother testified as to the daughter’s IQ, diagnosis, and her inability to live independently. The daughter hadn’t been able to hold a job, relied on the mother for transportation, and couldn’t manage money. She feared other people and couldn’t remember to perform basic personal care. The father cited her graduation from high school, ability to perform basic household tasks, and competition of a certificate program as reasons to stop support. The district court granted the mother’s motion and set support.

Bruce v. Bruce (Wyoming 2021)

March 2021

The trial court’s child support order will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. The parents divorced. The final decree ordered the father pay child support for the child and half of the travel expenses. The father appealed the order arguing the court should have attributed a higher income to the mother, erred in awarding retroactive support and in denying a deviation for travel expenses.

Halterman v. Halterman (North Carolina 2021)

March 2021

A foreign support order must be properly registered under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction for enforcement and modification. The mother, a resident of North Carolina, filed to register three Florida custody and support orders. The father, a resident of Virginia, filed to dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to comply with UIFSA. The trial court granted the motion and the mother appealed.

Greer v. Greer (Mississippi 2021)

March 2021

A parent who fails to pursue a paternity challenge will not be provided with post-trial relief. The mother became pregnant while separated from the father. The parents reconciled and the baby was given the father’s last name. When the parents filed for divorce, the father requested genetic testing for the younger child. His request was granted, and he was ordered to schedule and pay for the testing, which he failed to do. He also didn’t appear at the divorce hearing. In the final decree, he was ordered to pay support for the parties two children. The father appealed arguing the court should have determined paternity for the younger child before granting the divorce.