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

Pope v. Fountain (Mississippi 2019)

December 2019

In a paternity proceeding, all necessary parties must be joined. The child who was the subject of this case had a presumed and biological father. The biological father filed to establish paternity, and the mother responded. The presumptive father was not joined as a party to the action even though he was ordered to pay support for the child and granted visitation in a divorce decree. The chancery court entered an order establishing the biological father’s paternity, granting visitation, and ordering support. The mother appealed, arguing the presumptive father should have been joined as a party.

Killinger v. Killinger (Nebraska 2019)

December 2019

When a parent has a variable income, it is appropriate to use a three-year average to set child support. The father and mother, who had three children, filed for divorce. The father owned his own business, and his income fluctuated from yearly. At trial, he presented evidence of his income from the previous seven years. The trial court averaged his income from the most recent three years and set child support accordingly. The father appealed.

In re Creagh (Kansas 2019)

December 2019

If parents agree to a child support arrangement in a marital settlement agreement, it will be enforced as long as the terms are clear and unambiguous. The parents divorced, and a basic child support obligation was set. In the property settlement agreement, the parents agreed that the child support would be offset to pay two of mother’s marital debt. Several years later, the father filed to terminate spousal support. The mother then filed to modify child support and to account for the child support owed because the father hadn’t increased his child support payment once her debts were paid. The trial court modified support based on the father’s increased income and ordered him to pay the arrearage owed. The father appealed.

Parsons v. Parsons (Tennessee 2019)

December 2019

A parent must properly plead for a modification otherwise it shouldn’t be considered during a court proceeding. In this post-divorce action, the mother filed for contempt and breach of contract against the father. In their marital dissolution agreement (MDA), the mother was to receive a portion of the father’s supplemental federal retirement benefit. When a federal employee must retire before being social security eligible, this supplemental benefit kicks in to make up the difference. The father, a retired air traffic controller, had to retire at age 56, and was entitled to the benefit. If the federal employee earns income above a certain amount, the supplemental benefit it reduced. This is what happened, and the mother filed to recover her portion. Initially, the trial court awarded the mother additional child support to make up for the lost amount, but in a later proceeding, reversed this decision.

Tools for Better Practices and Better Outcomes: The Behavioral Interventions for Child Support Services (BICS) Project

November 2019

he federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) funded the Behavioral Interventions for Child Support Services (BICS)demonstration grant to explore the application of behavioral science principles to operational challenges in child support services. This report summarizes the outcomes and lessons learned from each intervention. The eight grantees implemented interventions designed to address barriers to the establishment, enforcement, and modification of child support orders. The interventions ranged from simplifying paperwork to implementing in-person meetings with parents to explain payment options.

Hodgen v. Hodgen (Nebraska 2019)

November 2019

A child support abatement will be granted when the parent meets the criteria in the decree. The parents divorced, and the decree contained a provision that allowed the father to abate his child support during June, July, and August as long as he had the children for visitation 28 days or more during the summer. In October 2018, the father filed for an abatement of child support for his summer visitation. The mother objected, arguing that granting the abatement would leave her in a precarious financial situation. The trial court denied the abatement, and the father appealed.

Hart v. Hart (North Carolina 2019)

November 2019

Failing to include a corrected support order with a packet for registration is procedural, not jurisdictional, and doesn’t necessarily bar a court from modifying the support order. The parents divorced in Washington, and the father was ordered to pay support. The support order was amended twice, once to reflect the mother and children’s move to North Carolina, and once to fix a typographical error. The father also moved to North Carolina. The mother registered the support order for enforcement. When she filed to register, she didn’t include the corrected order. The father filed to modify support and included all three orders in his filing. The trial court granted his petition and credited him for a substantial amount of support. The mother appealed.

Poole v. Kinslow (Tennessee 2019)

November 2019

If a court finds a parent voluntarily underemployed, it may use the parent’s earning capacity to calculate child support. In this divorce action, the trial court calculated support using the father’s earning capacity. He was self-employed at the time of trial, but he had earned no income. The father appealed. The court of appeals affirmed.

Sensing v. Sensing (Tennessee 2019)

October 2019

The parent requesting the child support modification bears the burden of proving a significant variance exists between the existing support amount and the amount based on the parent’s current income. The father filed to modify his child support, and the court denied his petition. He appealed on the basis that the court improperly imputed capital gains income to him and that the court applied an improper legal standard. The court of appeals disagreed.

Fireoved v. Fireoved (Kansas 2019)

October 2019

The application of the multi-family credit is discretionary. When calculating support, the costs of the child’s health insurance and reasonable costs of child care are added to the gross child support obligation.

Pages