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

Working Toward a Resolution Facilitating Dialogue Between Parents Using Principles of Procedural Justice

September 2020

The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) funded the Procedural Justice Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC) grant to explore the application of procedural justice principles to enforcing child support orders. The grant targets noncustodial parents who are about to be referred for contempt. This brief explores the use of case conferences to develop a case action plan that identifies barriers and solutions.

Baumann v. Baumann (Mississippi 2020)

September 2020

A parent must plead for child support. This puts the other parent on notice of the support claim. In this case, the final divorce decree ordered the father to pay back child support starting January 2015. The father filed a motion for new trial or, alternatively to amend the judgment with respect to the back child support as well as other custody issues. Specific to the child support, the trial court denied the motion but changed the start date for the back support to April 2015. The father appealed.

Garrison v. Courtney (Mississippi 2020)

September 2020

Service in a contempt proceeding must provide the parent with due process and cannot be waived. The failure to pay support as ordered is prima facie evidence of contempt. The parents filed for divorce. The chancery court entered a temporary order for custody and child support. Mid-proceeding, the mother filed a contempt motion for father’s failure to pay support. The chancery court heard this motion in conjunction with the already scheduled divorce trial. In the final order, the chancery court found the father in contempt. The father appealed several provisions of the final order, including the contempt finding.

Davis v. Henderson (Mississippi 2020)

September 2020

A child’s clear and extreme actions may be grounds to end child support. As part of ongoing post-divorce litigation, the father filed a motion to terminate his child support obligation to his oldest child, who refused to have contact with him. In the final order, the chancery court granted the request. The mother appealed the termination of support.

In the Matter of the Paternity of AAE, TE v. Wy. Dep’t of Family Services (Wyoming 2020)

September 2020

A nonparty has no standing to participate in an action. A court can’t deny a petition to establish paternity once a genetic test is completed and the results meet the statutory threshold. The Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) filed to terminate the parental rights of the mother, the child’s presumed father, and the child’s biological father. The mother and the presumed father relinquished their rights. The biological father filed a petition to establish paternity in the termination action. DFS filed a motion to strike this petition, arguing that DFS wasn’t an appropriate party to the paternity action.

In re Marriage of Poggi (Kansas 2020)

September 2020

A district court’s decision has the discretion to apply the extended income formula for child support and findings are not required. In this high-income case, there were three child support orders: temporary, final judgement, and in a post-trial memorandum order. In the final judgment, the district court calculated support using the extended income formula and recalculated the temporary support based on the evidence presented at trial. The father filed a post-trial motion to modify support. In the memorandum order, the district court modified support based on evidence presented during the post-trial hearing and gave the father credit for direct expenses even though he hadn’t made a specific request. The father appealed, and the mother cross-appealed. 

Centering Child Well-Being in Child Support Policy

August 2020

Child well-being should be at the center of the policies that drive the child support program. While the child support program has been working towards a culture shift for the last few years, the pandemic highlighted some of the gaps in current regulations and policy and the ability to provide services that support family stability.

Knipper v. Enfinger (Tennessee 2020)

August 2020

When ordering retroactive support, a trial court can deviate from the presumptive support amount but must make the statutorily required findings to support the deviation. The mother appealed a trial court order that denied her request for support retroactive to the child’s birth. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for additional findings.

Webb v. State of Wyoming (Wyoming 2020)

August 2020

When a parent agrees to an amount of child support, the parent then has no grounds to later argue the order was unconstitutional. The father appealed an order of the district court denying his request to modify his $50 child support order. The initial divorce decree set the child support at the statutory minimum of $50 that was then in place. The father agreed to the amount. Two years later, he filed to modify support and argued the order was unconstitutional in that the minimum child support amount was irrebuttable and conflicted with federal 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.