In re Parentage of W.L. and G.L. (Kansas 2023)

A judgment entered by a court with proper jurisdiction is final and not subject to collateral attack. In this case, a stepparent filed to establish parentage of children several months after the district court adjudicated another person’s parentage. The stepparent claimed presumptions of parentage under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 23-2208(a)(3)(A), (C), and (a)(4). The legal parents,…

Read More

Tucker v. Tucker (Wyoming 2023)

Wyoming statute requires a child support order be based on specific financial information. This case has a long procedural history. The mother and father divorced and child support was ordered in the final decree. The State filed to modify support in 2017. The district court entered a temporary order modifying support in 2018. In 2021,…

Read More

Manley v. Manley (Mississippi 2023)

A parent must provide clear and convincing evidence in order to receive credit for payments made outside of the terms of a child support order. The mother filed a contempt action against the father for failure to pay child support. The father testified he had paid for the children’s expenses including car payments, tags, car…

Read More

White v. White (Mississippi 2023)

A parent can’t contract away a child’s right to support. The mother filed to find the father in contempt for failure to pay support. The father had stopped paying support when the parents youngest child turned 18. The father argued that a provision in the divorce decree ended support when the youngest child turned 18 or emancipated. The chancery court gave the father credit for some expenses he had paid on behalf of the child but entered a judgment against father for support up to the child’s 21st birthday. The father appealed.

Read More

In re Obembe (Kansas 2023)

A district court has many factors it can consider when applying the extended income formula for child support.. Payments to a 529 account, when ordered as a separate provision in a divorce decree, aren’t child support. The mother and father, both high earners, divorced. The final order set spousal support, child support for three children and, as a standalone term, required both parents to contribute monthly to a 529 account for each child. When the spousal support ended, the mother filed to modify child support. Using the extended income formula, the district court increased support and declined to count the father’s 529 contributions as support. The district court denied the father’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. He appealed on several grounds.

Read More

Pinnacol v. Laughlin (Colorado)

For child support funds to be exempt from garnishment, the account into which they are deposited must comply with the provisions of the Colorado Uniform Transfer to Minors Act. When social security funds are comingled with other money, only the amount of funds that is clearly traceable to social security is exempt from garnishment. The parent in this case was awarded Social Security Disability. His employer had provided temporary disability during the award period and sought reimbursement. When the judgment wasn’t paid, the employer began garnishment proceedings. The parent argued his funds were exempt.

Read More

In re Pretz (Kansas 2023)

Under the law of the case, a motion to modify support can’t be used to relitigate issues already decided by the court in a previous stage of the case. The district court granted the father’s motion to modify child support. The mother did not appeal this order. Almost immediately, the mother filed a new motion…

Read More

Price v. Price (North Carolina 2022)

Evidence must support the determination of a parent’s income. Income determinations will be reviewed de novo. The father appealed the final order in this modification action, arguing that he had no notice of the hearing and that the trial court erred in calculating his income. The father failed to appear at the hearing. To calculate the father’s income, the mother presented the father’s W-2 form with his annual wages, evidence of his receipt of short-term disability payments, and income from a business. The appellate court found he had proper notice of the hearing but that the evidence didn’t support the income determination.

Read More

Gyger v. Clement (North Carolina 2022)

Under the Hague Convention, the  respondent parent must have minimum contacts with a country for the country to have jurisdiction to enter a child support order. Switzerland, on behalf of mother, requested North Carolina register a Swiss child support order for enforcement. The father argued the Swiss Court had no personal jurisdiction over him, which is required as part of the Hague Convention. The North Carolina district court agreed. It found the father hadn’t received the required notice and opportunity to be heard. The mother appealed.

Read More

In re Parentage of MF (Kansas 2022)

In this ongoing parentage case, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a district court’s determination that a birth parent successfully rebutted a presumption of the appellant’s parentage. The case was heard on remand from the Kansas Supreme Court, who sent it back for the district court to apply the proper parentage test. First, the party who wishes to be declared a legal parent must satisfy one of the statutory presumptions in K.S.A. 23-2208(a). If the presumption is established, then the other party must rebut it by clear and convincing evidence, by court decree establishing paternity of someone else, or an application of the test for competing presumptions. If the presumption is rebutted, the burden shifts back to the other party to prove the existence of a parent-child relationship by a preponderance of the evidence.

Read More

Hoard v. Barrom (Tennessee 2022)

 A court is without jurisdiction to modify a support order once a child has emancipated. The state of Tennessee petitioned to modify the father’s support order. The child turned 18 the following month. The trial court modified the order. A year later, the father moved to set aside the order, arguing the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify since the child had turned 18 and graduated from high school before order entry. The court denied the motion to set aside. The father appealed. The appellate court vacated the support order.

Read More

Hornsby v. Hornsby (Mississippi 2022)

A parent requesting a modification based on a reduction in income must show a corresponding change in his or her lifestyle. The father, a self-employed lawyer, requested a modification of child support. The chancery court denied his request. The father appealed. The appellate court affirmed. The father argued the chancery court improperly granted a motion in limine that excluded relevant evidence. However, the father made no proffer of evidence during the trial and, on appeal, failed to specify any specific evidence that was excluded.

Read More

Barham v. Barham (North Carolina 2022)

A parent can’t unilaterally  modify a child support order. The original divorce decree ordered the father to pay support for the parties’ eight children. Support was modified several times. After entry of the latest modification, the father began paying one cent per pay period toward monthly support. He filed for credit for overpaying support, arguing he had made two additional child support payments each year for the years spanning 2013 -2019. The mother filed a motion for contempt for nonpayment. The trial court found the father in contempt.

Read More

Marcel v. Marcel (Tennessee 2022)

To calculate child support income for a parent with variable income (wages, bonus, overtime), the trial court should consider income over a period of time which will account for the variable income. In this case, the father worked at a plant and his income varied. He earned wages, bonuses, overtime, and double time. To calculate his income for child support, the trial court used his last four paystubs, which didn’t include any of this income. However, the information on the pay stub indicated that this type of income had been received year-to-date. The mother appealed the child support term of the final order.

Read More

Eidson v. Kakouras (North Carolina 2022)

Stipulations to facts are favored but they must be clearly shown in the record and both parties must agree. The parents divorced in 2012 and post-divorce actions for modification of custody and child support began immediately. Specific to this appeal, the father appeals the latest child support order, which resolved a variety of outstanding motions. The appellate court vacated the orders on appeal and remanded.

Read More

MDHS v. Reaves (Mississippi 2022)

A child support payment vests in the child, and once paid, is not reimbursable. The father was ordered to pay child support in the divorce decree. The father filed to modify custody, and child support was addressed in several orders throughout this proceeding. The final order addressing child support found the father was entitled to reimbursement by the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS) for overpaid support. MDHS appealed.

Read More

Taylor v. Taylor (Tennessee 2022)

An order must contain findings of fact to support an upward deviation for extraordinary educational expenses. This award is in addition to presumptive support. The parents had two children. The father’s original support order included an upward deviation for private school tuition. The parties filed numerous post-divorce motions. In the latest action, following a bench trial, the trial court modified support. The final order was then amended. The support amount in the amended order differed from the support amount in attached worksheet, and the father was ordered to “pay per pay period.”

Read More

Green v. Green (Mississippi 2022)

When a parent’s annual adjusted gross income exceeds $100,000, Mississippi statute requires findings as to whether an application of the guidelines is reasonable. The parents, who had two children, filed for divorce. The father’s adjusted gross income exceeded $100,000. To set support, the chancery court followed the Mississippi child support guidelines, which set support for two children at twenty percent of the parent’s adjusted gross income. The mother appealed several terms of the order including the child support calculation. She argued the support amount wasn’t sufficient.

Read More

Ponder v. Ponder (Mississippi 2022)

An upward modification can be retroactive to the date of the event justifying the upward modification. When the parents divorced, they had joint physical and legal custody of the child, and no support was ordered. The decree was later modified to grant the mother physical custody of the child. The order stayed entry of a child support order for 90 days. He was to find employment during that time or notify the mother of his failure to find employment so she could take the next action.

Read More

In re Parentage of C.R. (Kansas 2022)

When faced with competing paternity presumptions, the court must decide which presumption is based on weightier considerations of policy and logic. This child had two potential legal fathers, P.R. and J.P. P.R. agreed to have his name on the child’s birth certificate, knowing that he wasn’t the child’s biological father. J.P. was the child’s biological father. An initial paternity order named P.R. the child’s legal father. Several years later, J.P. filed to intervene claiming he hadn’t received notice of the initial paternity action.

Read More

Marriage of DePumpo (Colorado 2022)

Unrealized gains on an investment portfolio don’t meet the definition for child support income. However, equitable principles may apply. The definition of income includes income from rent. Depreciation can only be included if it is found to be an ordinary and necessary business expense, as defined in the child support statute. The parties filed for divorce. Specific to child support, the trial court calculated the mother’s income using her monthly salary and included an amount for unrealized monthly gains from an investment account. The trial court included depreciation expenses associated with rental properties in the father’s income. The mother appealed the final order, arguing the incomes were not correct.

Read More

Grace v. Grace (Tennessee 2022)

In January 2017, the parties registered a Kentucky decree of divorce in Tennessee. In 2020, the father asked to modify the visitation schedule, and the mother counter-petitioned to modify support. Specific to support, the trial court entered a judgment for arrears due under the Kentucky order from January 2014 – December 2016. It then modified support, effective January 2017. The trial court denied the mother’s request for pre and post judgment interest. The mother appealed the order’s child support provisions. The appellate four affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Read More

Williams v. Williams (Kansas 2022)

Parents have a proactive duty to disclose a material change in financial circumstances. If this change isn’t disclosed, sanctions may be imposed. In this case, the father filed to modify support based on a reduced income. In the process, it came to light the father failed to disclose a substantial increase in income for a three-year period. In its final order, the trial court modified support and imposed a sanction for the failure to disclosure the change in income. 

Read More

In the Matter of the Parentage of A.K. (Kansas 2022)

When there are two competing presumptions of paternity, the court must determine which presumption if founded on the weightier consideration of policy and logic, including the best interests of the child. This child in this case has two possible legal parents, A.M., who was in a relationship with the child’s mother at the time of the child’s birth, and Q.K., a stepparent. A.M., by her actions, notoriously recognized parentage at the time of the child’s birth. Q.K. was a presumptive parent because he married the child’s mother and added his name to the child’s birth certificate as her father.

Read More

In re Jonathan S. (Tennessee 2022)

A parent who requests a modification must prove a significant variance exists in the support obligation. When imputing income, the court must consider the statutory factors. The father requested a modification of child support. The trial court found the mother voluntarily underemployed and imputed income to her at the rate of her former job, which was in a different city. The mother appealed.

Read More

Berens v. Berens (North Carolina 2022)

The prohibition again retroactive modifications of support only applies to past due support. This divorce proceeding, specifically the setting of child support, in this case was prolonged. The father filed to modify the child temporary support order, while the entry of the permanent order was on appeal. The appellate court affirmed the permanent child support order. In the latest appeal, the mother appealed the modification of the permanent order. The father filed to modify based on the emancipation of a child.

Read More

Kubica v. Morgan (North Carolina 2022)

A court has jurisdiction to hear a claim for child support within a child custody proceeding. The father filed to modify custody. The modified order granted primary physical custody to the mother. She then filed a motion to modify child support. The father filed to dismiss the motion, arguing the court had no jurisdiction to hear child support within a custody proceeding. The trial court denied the motion. The father appealed, arguing the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the child support issue.

Read More

Britt and Wake County Human Services, Child Support Enf., Intervenor, v. Britt (North Carolina 2022)

A parent must provide the requisite proof in order for business expenses deducted from gross income. The parents filed for divorce. The father was self-employed and owned rental properties. During the trial, the father provided testimony as to his income, bank accounts, deposits into the bank accounts, and current work situation In weighing the evidence to determine the father’s income for child support, the trial court found the father’s testimony evasive and unreliable. The trial court used evidence of monthly deposits into his bank accounts to set his income and calculated support according to the guidelines.

Read More

Nakauchi v. Cowart (Colorado 2022)

Due process requires parents in direct pay cases receive advance notice of the entry of an income withholding order (IWO) for future child support payments. The mother, who paid her child support directly, filed suit against the county for violating her right to due process when it sent her employer an IWO without notice. The trial court agreed and entered a state-wide injunction requiring notice to obligors concurrently with the entry of an IWO for future support. The Mother appealed, arguing concurrent notice was inadequate to protect her rights. The County also appealed, arguing the injunction was unnecessary.

Read More

Carroll v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Family Services, Child Support Enforcement (Wyoming 2022)

To set aside an order, there must be unusual circumstances. The child support order at issue in this case was set in 2012. The father was ordered to pay $50 per month, the statutory minimum. The father challenged the statute setting the statutory minimum as unconstitutional several times but was unsuccessful. In the latest legal action, the District Court modified the support order to $0 and entered a judgment for his arrears. The District Court denied his motion to set aside the order.

Read More

Bossian v. Bossian (North Carolina 2022)

Parents can’t unilaterally modify child support orders. A parent is required to comply with the order even if it contains clerical errors. The father was found in contempt for failure to pay support. The final order included a purge payment and date for compliance. The mother filed a motion to correct clerical errors in the contempt order, and father filed a motion to for relief from the contempt order. The trial court granted the mother’s motion and denied the father’s motion. The trial court entered an arrest order but lowered the purge payment so the father could be quickly released.

Read More

Hollis v. Hollis (Tennessee 2022)

The definition of income is broad and all-encompassing. A reasonable necessity standard is applied to child support awards when the parents earn more than $10,000 per month. The parents of two special needs children filed for divorce.  The husband, a financial advisor, was the primary source of income for the family. His income included a loan from his employer, which was tied to performance goals. The loan was forgiven as he met the goals. As his income exceeded $10,000 per month, the trial court had to consider the reasonable necessity standard when awarding support above the guidelines. In its final order, the trial court found support should be set above the guideline amount in light of the father’s income and the children’s extensive special needs. Both parents appealed the final order.

Read More

Robinson v. Robinson (Tennessee 2022)

To find a parent voluntarily unemployed, the court must consider the parent’s choices and the reasonableness of the choices considering a parent’s obligation to support the child. The parents filed for divorce. They owned three Subway stores. Pending the final order, the court ordered that the mother would manage the stores and the father was to find another job. The father failed to find a job, so when calculating child support, the trial court imputed income to him that equaled the income for a Subway store manager. The father appealed, arguing the trial court had to first find him voluntarily unemployed before imputing income.

Read More

Kelley v. Zitzelberger (Mississippi 2022)

To modify a child support order, a parent must show a material change of circumstances that was unforeseen at the time of the original order. The father retired from the military and requested a modification of child support. The parents had orally agreed to reduce support and that the father would pay for certain expenses. The father wanted to offset the expenses with his arrears. The chancery court denied his request and entered a judgment for arrears. The appellate court affirmed.

Read More

Fox v. Ozkan (Kansas 2022)

The doctrine of acquiescence to a judgment applies when a parent complies with an income withholding order. A judgment for unreimbursed medical expenses was entered against the father. When the judgement was entered, an income withholding order was also put in place. After his motion for reconsideration was denied, he appealed. In the meantime, he satisfied the judgment.

Read More

Williams v. Wiley (North Carolina 2022)

A clerical error will not render a Notice of Registration of Foreign Support Order invalid. The parent claiming improper service must provide evidence of the defect. The Wake County child support office filed a Notice of Registration of Foreign Support Order, which was confirmed. The mother filed to dismiss the confirmation order, arguing the wrong person was served and she didn’t live at the address where the notice was mailed. The trial court denied her motion, and she appealed.

Read More

Hehn v. Johnson (Wyoming 2022)

Even in default child support hearings, the district court has an obligation to determine income for both parents. The mother filed for paternity and support. The father was served, but failed to answer, and the clerk entered default. Both parents appeared at the hearing. The father was awaiting sentencing on a criminal charge, so a temporary order was entered. Upon the father’s release, the mother requested a default hearing. Both parents appeared. The district court took no evidence. The final order granted mother custody, set out visitation, and ordered child support based on the mother’s calculation. The mother appealed.

Read More

Smith v. Grant (North Carolina 2022)

A child support order can’t be based on speculation. The parents appeared before the court to determine custody and child support for their child. Prior to hearing, the parents agreed on a joint legal custody and a visitation schedule but the trial court determined child support. The final order granted the mother primary physical custody of the child and calculated child support using Worksheet A, which is based on one parent having less than 123 night of visitation per year. 

Read More

Wallace v. Wallace (Mississippi 2022)

Parents can’t unilaterally modify child support. The parents divorced in 2011, and the final divorce decree set out their visitation schedule and ordered the father to pay support. With time, the children alternated weeks with each parent. The father stopped paying support in 2017. In 2019, the mother filed to modify custody, support, for a finding of contempt for the father’s failure to pay support, and sought relief for other issues.

Read More

Morris v. Morris (North Carolina)

The prohibition against retroactive modifications doesn’t come into play if the child support order is temporary. In 2014, the parents filed for divorce and, in 2015, the court entered a temporary support order for the father to pay support, which it then suspended in a 2016 order. In 2020, the court entered a final order and calculated the father’s child support starting in 2016. The father appealed the final order, arguing the 2016 order suspending support became a permanent order by virtue of its duration and it was error to set support back to 2016.

Read More

In re Marriage of Clark (Kansas 2022)

Any modification to a child support order must be court approved. In 2002, the father filed for divorce. The trial court entered a temporary order requiring the father to pay support and maintenance and the mother to pay the mortgage on the marital residence. A divorce decree was entered later in 2002, but it reserved the issues of support and maintenance. In the interim, the father paid the mortgage, but didn’t pay support or maintenance. The mother requested a hearing, which the court denied.

Read More

Tucker v. Tucker (Wyoming 2023)

The record must contain sufficient evidence to support the determination of income for child support. This modification case was initially brought by the State. The father then filed his own petition. After a lengthy period, the district court entered an order modifying the father’s obligation. The mother appealed. She alleged the evidence didn’t support the calculation of the father’s income.

Read More

Tolliver v. Tolliver (Mississippi 2022)

To modify child support, a parent must show a material change of circumstances that were unforeseen at the time of the original order. The father worked full-time and held several side jobs. Following a mandatory COVID-10 quarantine, he didn’t report back to work at his full-time stating he still had symptoms, yet he still worked at his side jobs. He was terminated and the letter noted he continued to work at outside employment while receiving paid sick leave. He requested a modification of his child support.

Read More

In re Nusz (Kansas 2022)

Evidence must support the determination of a parent’s income. In this divorce action, the mother appealed the child support portion of the divorce decree, arguing no evidence in the record supported the income determinations. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of the district court’s wide discretion in setting income for child support.

Read More

In re Marriage of Flanders (Colorado 2022)

A caretaker, who receives parental responsibilities in a dependency proceeding, doesn’t necessarily qualify as a psychological parent for the purposes of child support. A dependency order gave a grandmother parenting responsibilities for her grandchild and ordered the child’s parents to pay support. After beginning regular visitation, the father filed to modify the order and requested the grandmother be considered a psychological parent who could be ordered to pay support, citing In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning A.C.H., 2019 COA 43 (Co. Ct. App. 2019).

Read More

Nowell v. Stewart (Mississippi 2022)

The modification of a child support order requires an unforeseen change of circumstances. The parent requesting the modification bears the burden of proof. The mother filed to modify child support based on the increased cost of the child’s special needs. After a lengthy proceeding, the chancery court enterd an order increasing support. The chancery court found the child’s needs had increased and had extensive medical expenses. The chancery court made the modification retroactive and entered a judgment.

Read More

In the Matter of the Parentage of N.P. (Kansas 2022)

A parent must move to set aside an order due to inadvertence or excusable neglect must do so within a year. At issue in this case is a child support order entered on September 24, 2018. On February 5, 2020, the father moved to set aside the order claiming mistake or inadvertence. The district court denied the motion. First, a claim of mistake or inadvertence had to be made with one year. The filing was outside this timeframe.

Read More

Roth v. Roth (North Carolina 2022)

The North Carolina child support guidelines define gross income from self-employment or operation of a business as gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary business expenses required for self-employment or business operation. The father requested a downward modification of his child support based on the parent’s custody schedule. The final order modified support, upwardly. The father appealed, arguing the court incorrectly determined his income.

Read More

Parental Resp Conc ACB (Colorado 2022)

Due Process requires appointment of counsel for indigent parents when a governmental agency initiates a contempt proceeding and jail is a possible remedy. The child support office filed a contempt proceeding against the father. The petition sought a jail term for the father, which would be suspended based on payment of child support. Throughout the proceeding, the father notified the court he had no ability to pay support and requested appointed counsel. The trial court denied his request and found him in contempt. The father appealed. 

Read More

Barus v. Coffey (North Carolina 2022)

A motion to modify child support is sufficient if it contains allegations in line with statutory requirements for a presumptive modification. The trial court dismissed the father’s motion to modify child support for failure to state a claim finding the motion didn’t provide the mother with sufficient notice. The father appealed and the appellate court reversed and remanded.

Read More

Daniels v. Yasa (Kansas 2021)

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed to modify a Missouri child support order. The father requested his support obligation be terminated due to his child’s failure to comply with the requirements to receive support after high school. He also requested reimbursement of his support paid from the time of the child’s high school graduation. The district court entered a judgment for medical and educational expenses, denied his request for reimbursement, and he appealed.  

Read More

In re Stradtmann (Colorado 2021)

Under Colorado statute, child support can be retroactive to the date of the parent’s separation, the date of the filing of the petition, or the date of service on the responding parent, whichever date is later. The final decree in this divorce case ordered child support retroactive to February 2019, the date of the parent’s separation. The father appealed this provision arguing this date didn’t comply with the statutory requirements.

Read More

Bailey v. Bailey (Nebraska 2021)

A court may require security for child support payments if compelling circumstances exist. In this divorce action, the final decree ordered the father to secure his child support obligation with a life insurance policy and divided childcare expenses between the parents in order for the mother to maintain her job or pursue a higher education. The father appealed these provisions.

Read More

Peck v. Peck (Nebraska 2021)

Earning capacity can be used to determine income instead of a parent’s actual income. To get credit for health insurance premiums, a parent must provide proof of the cost. The mother appealed the final order in a proceeding to modify custody and support. She appealed several provisions including the child support calculation, arguing the court incorrectly used her earning capacity as her income and granted the father credit for contributing to the children’s health insurance premium. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Read More

Marriage of Evans (Colorado 2021)

A property division can be re-opened upon the discovery of an undisclosed asset. Child support will be recalculated to reflect any change in a parent’s income from the new asset. In this post-divorce action, the mother petitioned to reopen the parents’ original property division. She found an undisclosed asset, the father’s ownership of a business. The magistrate agreed, allocated the asset, and modified the child support order based on additional income from the business. The father appealed, first to the district court, which affirmed, and then to the appellate court.

Read More

Webber v. Randle (Mississippi 2021)

An estate administrator has an obligation to determine the heirs and can challenge paternity. An estate administrator, the widow of the decedent, filed to determine heirship. The decedent had four children: two born during his first marriage, one with the widow, and a child for whom paternity had yet to be established. His widow, the administrator of his estate, filed to determine heirship. The chancery court ordered DNA testing of all four children. The results showed a high probability that the children of the ex-wife and the children of the widow were not related, which meant the decedent was not the biological father of the two children from his first marriage.

Read More

Hill v. Hill (Tennessee 2021)

The trial court must follow the required procedure when modifying a child support order. The parents appeared before the court on post-divorce motions. The two children were emancipated at the time of the hearing. Child support was at issue. In an earlier hearing, the father had received custody of the son, and the court hadn’t ordered support. At issue was the father’s income. The father received an inheritance and used the money to pay for the children’s private school tuition. The trial court recognized the inheritance was income to the father but in the final order, the trial court found it would be unjust to count the inheritance as income since the father used it to pay for tuition. The trial court calculated support and entered a judgement in favor of the father for back support.

Read More

Davis v. Henderson (Mississippi 2021)

When reviewing a lower court’s decision to terminate child support due to the child’s extreme actions, the proper standard of review of abuse of discretion. The chancery court terminated a father’s obligation to support his child based on the child’s refusal to have contact with the father. The obligation was terminated until the child resumed visitation with the father. The court of appeals reversed, finding the father at fault for the deterioration of the relationship. The Supreme Court reversed, finding the appellate court didn’t apply the right standard of review. 

Read More

Vanderveer v. Vanderveer (Nebraska 2021)

The definition of income for child support is purposefully broad. All income, unless specifically excluded, counts as long as it is regularly received for the foreseeable future. The parents, who had two children, filed for divorce. The father’s income consisted of a base salary, an annual bonus, and the proceeds from stock shares. He received stock shares from his employer annually. The shares vested in the future, and as they vested, the father cashed them and used them for household expenses. In the division of marital property, the trial court divided the stock grants received during the marriage that were not yet vested. The trial court excluded any stock proceeds from the father’s income for child support. The mother and father both appealed the final decree. 

Read More

Tigart v. Tigart (Tennessee 2021)

A child support order can be modified when there is a significant variance, which means at least a fifteen percent difference in the current support obligation and the proposed support amount. In the original parenting plan, the parents agreed to an upward deviation in child support so the children could enjoy the same lifestyle. The mother filed to modify the parenting plan and for contempt. The father answered and filed a motion to set aside the divorce decree. The trial court denied the father’s motion to set aside but reduced support based on the father’s new amount of parenting time and his additional child. The mother filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment arguing there was no substantial variance in support.

Read More

Toro v. Toro (Nebraska 2021)

A trial court’s determination of income won’t be disturbed on appeal without a clear abuse of discretion. The parents filed for divorce. They had two children. The court had to calculate the father’s net monthly income for support. He worked construction and took side jobs for cash. He submitted his income tax returns for the last three years. The trial court used his 2019 tax return to calculate his monthly income and found the father has an earning capacity of $60,000. The father appealed, arguing the court should have averaged his income for the past three years.

Read More

Jefferson v. Jefferson (Mississippi 2021)

Nontaxable federal payments for military members such as basic allowable housing (BAH), basic allowable subsistence (BAS), cost of living and a clothing allowance are income for child support. The parents filed for divorce. The father was a military member and received benefits on top of his regular salary including BAS, BAH, cost-of-living allowance, and clothing allowance. The father appealed, arguing these benefits should not be counted as income.

Read More

Snowden v. Jaure (Wyoming 2021)

A parent who chooses not to work can be considered voluntarily underemployed. The father filed to modify support based on an increase in the mother’s income. In her financial affidavit, the mother represented she had no income. She testified she had worked in the oil and gas industry, had been laid off due to the pandemic, and was choosing to stay at home with her younger children. The trial court reduced her prior earnings by twenty five percent and imputed her at that amount. The father’s financial affidavit showed he only worked 20 hours per week.

Read More

Johnson v. Johnson (Nebraska 2021)

For child support to be properly before the court, the pleading must contain the right language. The original divorce decree granted the parents shared custody of their two children and set child support at zero. The father filed to modify custody and support and the mother counterclaimed for a modification of custody and support consistent with the Nebraska guidelines. The final order found neither party met the burden to change custody. The mother filed to alter or amend the order requesting the court address a material change of circumstances with respect to support. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order for father to pay the mother. The father appealed.

Read More

Sallae v. Omar (Nebraska 2021)

A parent who seeks to modify a child support order must show a ten percent change in support, upward or downward, due to financial circumstances which have lasted three months and that will most likely continue for another six months. In this case, the initial support order required the father to pay monthly child support of $50. The mother filed to modify support citing the parties change in employment and income. Testimony showed the father had worked but was not working at the time of hearing. He testified he could only work 20 hours per week, and he suffered from sleeping issues and other ailments. He offered no supporting documentation. The mother was eligible for a raise, which meant the child no longer qualified for Medicaid. She was going to have to insure him through her employer-provided insurance.

Read More

O’Roake v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Dept’ Family Svcs. (Wyoming 2021)

Child support can continue beyond the age of majority if a child is mentally or physically disabled and incapable of self-support. The Department of Family Services filed extend support for a child beyond the age of the child’s majority due to the child’s diagnosis of a metabolic disorder. The court commissioner recommended modifying support, and the district approved the recommendation. The order continued support so long as the child was enrolled as a full-time college student. The father appealed.

Read More

Abney v. Pace (Tennessee 2021)

If a parent provides  health insurance for a child on top of the court-ordered insurance, the cost must be a reasonable for the parent to receive credit for the premium. In the parent’s divorce decree, the father was ordered to pay support and provide health insurance. The father filed to modify support. The mother answered claiming the father had not provided her with proof of the insurance and she counterclaimed for contempt for failure to pay support.

Read More

Chalmers v. Burrough (Kansas 2021)

A parent’s failure to comply with the registration procedure for UIFSA doesn’t deprive a district court of general subject matter jurisdiction over support orders. The father filed to register and modify a Florida support order in Kansas but failed to attach a copy of the original order, as required by statute. The court temporarily modified support. The mother filed to dismiss the action based on the father’s failure to comply with the registration procedure, arguing the court was without jurisdiction over the order.

Read More

Stephens v. Stephens (Mississippi 2021)

To modify a child support order, there must be a substantial and material change not anticipated at the time of the original order. To contest a contempt finding, the parent must show evidence of the inability to pay. The parents in this case divorced and the final decree reflected their agreement as to child support and uncovered medical expenses. The mother subsequently filed numerous petitions for contempt. This appeal consolidates the father’s appeal of the two latest orders.

Read More

Friday v. Miss. Dep’t of Human Services (Mississippi 2021)

A paternity action must be brought before a child turns 21. The Mississippi Department of Human Services filed to establish paternity for a child who at the time of filing was 20 years old. The father filed several motions to dismiss, arguing the child had turned 21 and the case shouldn’t proceed. The Chancery Court entered an order adjudicating the father’s paternity and ordering a year of support. The father appealed.

Read More

Canzoneri v. Burns (Tennessee 2021)

The Tennessee child support guidelines contain specific factors to consider when declaring parent underemployed. In this modification action, the father was a self-employed landscaper. Citing his education, background, and a booming economy, the trial court found him underemployed and imputed a higher income. Interestingly, his support was reduced because mother’s income had increased. Regardless, the father appealed.

Read More

Pace v. Pace (Mississippi 2021)

If a parent’s earnings are reduced through the parent’s own actions, the court may use earning capacity to determine income for child support. The parents filed for divorce. The father, a doctor, had a substance abuse problem. To keep his medical license, he had to undergo treatment and consent to monitoring. Instead, he surrendered his medical license. During the trial, he claimed he couldn’t afford the monitoring program. The chancellor used his earning capacity to set child support in the final order. The father appealed.

Read More

In re Rees (Kansas 2021)

When a parent voluntarily leaves a higher paying job, the court must determine if the termination was for rational and sufficient reasons and the parent can’t find a similarly paying job. The father moved and found a lower paying job. He petitioned to modify his child support based on his reduced income. As the reason for his move, the father presented evidence he no longer had visitation rights to the child and he would be closer to his family. The trial court granted his petition and reduced support. The mother appealed.

Read More

Task 11: States’ Child Support Guidelines for Children with Disabilities

This report explores the issue of setting child support for children with special needs. Estimates show an increase in the number of children with special needs over the last few decades. The children’s needs are wide and varied, which can make the cost to raise these children high. A parent may need to provide full-time care, which limits the parent’s ability to earn.

Read More

Nielson v. Nielson (Nebraska 2021)

A parent who seeks to modify a child support order must show an unforeseeable material change of circumstances that occurred after the entry of the original decree. The parents agreed to child support in the initial decree, even though the amount didn’t match the child support worksheets attached to the order. The father failed to pay, and the mother filed for contempt. Subsequently, the father filed to modify his child support order based on a downturn in his business.

Read More

Wilkinson v. Wilkinson (North Carolina 2021)

Findings of fact must support any deviation from presumptive child support amount. The mother filed to modify child support. The father responded with a request for a decrease. He paid monthly support and made an annual payment based on a percentage of his bonus. The final order decreased both support and the percentage of the annual bonus payment, determined an overpayment of support, and changed the allocation of uninsured medical expenses and activities. The mother appealed.

Read More

Warren County DSS v. Garrelts (North Carolina 2021)

A determination of paternity affects a substantial right. As such, the applicable law when determining paternity is the law of the “situs of the claim” or in other words, the law of the state where the claim arises. The mother and defendant, who lived in Virginia, agreed the defendant would donate sperm for artificial insemination. The insemination happened in Virginia, the child was born there, and lived there until moving to California. In California, the mother began receiving public assistance. At California’s request, North Carolina brought a paternity action.

Read More

State ex rel. Secy’ v. Cares (Kansas 2021)

A voluntary acknowledgement has the effect of an order of paternity and the statutes designate specific timeframes for recission. The State brought an action to enforce a child support order against the father. The father argued the voluntary acknowledgement of paternity, which was signed four years prior, was void. The district court found no basis to set aside the paternity acknowledgement. The father appealed.

Read More

Thornton v. Thornton (Mississippi 2021)

In the absence of specific findings, evidence in the record must support the award of the child tax exemption to a parent. In the latest appeal of this case, the mother appealed a court order changing custody of the younger child to the father, reducing his child support, and awarding him the income tax exemption for the younger child.

Read More

Davis v. Henderson (Mississippi 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.

Read More

Smith v. Smith (Mississippi 2021)

To modify a child support order, there must be a substantial and material change not anticipated at the time of the original order. The initial divorce decree awarded the mother sole physical and legal custody of the two minor children and ordered the father to pay support. Post-divorce, the mother moved to Tennessee and enrolled the daughter in a private school. The son attending a private boarding school. Subsequently, both parents filed petitions to modify custody and support. After a trial, the order granted the mother sole physical and legal custody of the daughter and father sole legal and physical custody of the son, ordered the father to pay half of the daughter’s private school tuition, and ended the father’s support obligation for the son. The court didn’t order the mother to pay support for the son. The father appealed.

Read More

Garrison v. Courtney (Mississippi 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.

Read More

Craven County v. Hageb (North Carolina 2021)

Specific findings must support a court’s decisions in a child support proceeding. In this proceeding to establish paternity and support for two children, the father was self-employed. The final order set out his income and including these findings: the court reviewed tax returns, his income from a gaming and lottery business was not included in the calculation, and he had significant personal expenses on his tax return. In the final support award, the court gave the father credit for one of two additional children living with him, finding his name was only on the birth certificate for one child. The father appealed.

Read More

Church v. Jones (Tennessee 2021)

The effective date of a modified order can be set as of the date of the modification petition, the date of the final hearing, or any appropriate date in between. The father filed to modify support based on his reduced income. It took almost four years for this proceeding to end. In the final order, the court reduced support and, applying its discretion, set the effective as the last day of final hearing. The father appealed.

Read More

Evans v. Evans (Nebraska 2021)

A parent must willfully fail to pay support in order to be found in civil contempt. The County Attorney brought a contempt action against the father for failure to pay support. The district court heard evidence of the father’s assets, including a home and his business. The father argued he was injured and couldn’t work. The district court found the father in contempt for failure to pay support, set a purge payment schedule, and ordered him incarcerated if he didn’t comply with the payment schedule. The father appealed. 

Read More

Lemus v. Martinez (Wyoming 2021)

A parent must provide proper proof of a legitimate business expense if the parent wants credit in the child support calculation. The father appealed several terms of the district court order, specifically the court’s decision not to give him credit for mortgage interest in his income for child support. The Supreme Court affirmed the child support order.

Read More

In re Yocky (Kansas 2021)

The Kansas Supreme Court has broad authority to promulgate the child support guidelines. The Kansas Supreme Court has statutory authority to establish child support guidelines. The guidelines require a parent to notify the other parent of any change in income which might be a substantial change of circumstances. The rules provide for sanctions for a failure to report. The mother requested a review of the support obligation. The father’s income had increased substantially since entry of the initial order and he failed to notify the mother. The court granted the mother’s request for sanctions, and the father appealed.

Read More

Porter v. Porter (Nebraska 2021)

To be considered final and appealable, an order must affect a substantial right. The mother filed to modify child support and served the father, who appeared at the initial hearing. He failed to appear at a later hearing and the court entered a default judgement against him for support. The father filed to vacate or alter the order, and the trial court set aside the judgment. The mother appealed.

Read More

Carman v. Harris (Kansas 2021)

A child support order can provide for payment of prenatal and birth expenses if the request is made timely. The 2015 initial paternity order contained no provision for the mother’s prenatal medical care or birth expenses. Mother made no attempt to recover these costs until 2016 when she filed a request for the expenses and to modify support. The trial court denied her request and the mother appealed.

Read More

Amsden v. Amsden (Nebraska 2021)

A settlement agreement is subject to the principles of contact law. If the parties haven’t agreed to essential terms, then there is no agreement. Following the father’s filing of a petition to modify custody, the parents in this case reached a settlement agreement. The parties read the agreement into the record during court, acknowledging the child support worksheet still needed to be completed. The trial court gave the parties time to do so. Eventually, the father filed a motion to enforce the agreement. The trial court granted the motion and ordered the mother to pay support. The mother appealed.

Read More

Bennett v. Bennett (Mississippi 2021)

The expenses associated with raising a child are expected to increase as the child ages but the specific amount isn’t foreseeable. An action to modify the child support amount may be necessary. The mother filed to find the father in contempt for failure to pay child support and to modify the order. She alleged her expenses had increased since the father hadn’t exercised visitation, the father had failed to pay his share of medical expenses, and  the father had a second job and was earning additional income.

Read More

Cousin v. Cousin (North Carolina 2021)

A court can use a parent’s prior income to calculate gross monthly income but findings must support the decision. This case came before the district court in early 2018. During the trial, the father testified as to his income so far 2018. Evidence showed his income for 2016 and 2017 and bonuses received during both years. The father testified he had yet to receive a bonus in 2018 and didn’t know if he would. To calculate the father’s income for child support, the district court used his 2017 income and added in an amount to cover a bonus. This meant the parties’ combined adjusted gross income was above the upper limit for the child support guidelines.

Read More

Langley v. Langely (Nebraska 2021)

A correct result in a child support modification will not be set aside even if the court applied the wrong reasoning. In the original divorce decree, neither party was ordered to pay support based on the close to equal parenting schedule. The mother filed to modify custody and the father counterclaimed to modify custody and support. The father alleged his reduced income as a substantial change of circumstances. The trial court granted the modification based on the amount of time the children spent with each parent and ordered the mother to pay support. The mother appealed.

Read More

In the Interest of KLW and JLW (Colorado 2021)

The Colorado Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) does not allow for a child to have more than two legal parents. When there are two competing unrebutted presumptions, the court must decide which presumption controls based on the weightier considerations of policy and logic. The children in this case had three possible parents: their mother,  CLF, who was in a relationship with their mother, and their biological father. The children were removed from their mother in a dependency and neglect action. CLF filed a motion to declare her as the mother of the children. Following a hearing, the juvenile court named the biological father as the legal parent, and CLF appealed.

Read More

State ex rel. Roberts v. Crafton (Tennessee 2021)

A child support order may be void on grounds of public policy if it relieves both parents of their obligation to pay support. The original divorce decree in this case ordered the father to pay half of the children’s private school tuition in lieu of child support. If the children stopped attending private school, then support would be calculated under the guidelines. Subsequently, the case was transferred from Circuit Court to Juvenile Court.  The father filed many motions all with the objective of setting aside the tuition provision.

Read More

McGrath v. Hester (Tennessee 2021)

A clear and unambiguous provision of an agreed-to parenting plan is enforceable. The parents in this case agreed to a provision in their parenting plan requiring them to each maintain a life insurance policy in the amount of $300,000 for the benefit of their children until completion of the child support obligation. The father, who remarried, passed away. He left a life insurance policy, and the mother filed a complaint requesting a constructive trust for the $300,000.

Read More

Bowmaker v. Rollman (Nebraska 2021)

Principles of equity may guide a trial court in crafting a decision under specific circumstances in a child support case. The mother registered a Kansas divorce decree in Nebraska and then filed to modify it and for a finding of contempt against the father for a failure to pay support. Prior to hearing, the parties agreed to a parenting agreement that modified child support. The court approved the agreement pending resolution of several other issues. Prior to entry of the final order, the father filed to set aside the parenting agreement due to a significant decrease in his income. The trial court set aside the agreement but offered the mother the opportunity to do additional discovery about the father’s income.

Read More

Eicke v. Eicke (Nebraska 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.

Read More

Lageman v. Lageman (Mississippi 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.

Read More

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

Read More