Malinak v. Malinak (North Carolina 2015)
If there is a court-ordered support obligation, the doctrine of laches does not bar the recovery of unpaid child support.
Read MoreBreen v. Black (Wyoming 2015)
A custodial parent must diligently pursue a claim for reimbursement of medical expenses or they can be barred by res judicata. A noncustodial parent can be found in civil contempt for failure to contribute to medical expenses if evidence supports the finding.
Read MoreCain v. Jacox (Kansas 2015)
The doctrine of res judicata will not bar a claim for post judgment interest on a child support obligation when a parent was not a party in a prior proceeding or in privity with a party to a prior proceeding.
Read MorePrice v. Snowden (Mississippi 2015)
The Court of Appeals reversed Chancery Court decision finding father was not in contempt of court.
Read MoreDeckard v. Deckard (Mississippi 2015)
Court of Appeals upheld lower court finding of contempt against father for failure to pay child support appropriate, that father was not entitled to a retroactive modification of the support amount, and that father had no proof of any extra judicial agreement to lower the support amount.
Read MoreArtz v. Norris (Mississippi 2015)
Court of Appeals held finding of contempt against father was appropriate, father could not unilaterally modify court order and make child support payments directly to child without the court’s approval, and father was liable for his payment toward the child’s medical insurance premium even though mother’s new husband employer paid for the insurance.
Read MoreBullock v. Bullock (Wyoming 2014)
A civil contempt order must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is “evidence that would persuade a finder of fact that the truth of the contention is highly probable.” The elements of civil contempt are: “1) an effective court order that required certain conduct by the alleged contemnor; 2) the…
Read MoreMuir v. Kansas Health Policy Authority (Kansas 2014)
The Kansas Health Policy Authority did not erroneously interpret the law or act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably when it calculated a Medicaid recipient’s available income that could be used to pay the cost of medical care without first deducting amounts that the person had been ordered to pay in child support and maintenance.
Read MoreOrtiz v. Ortiz (Kansas 1956)
The marriage of a minor child does not automatically terminate the child support obligation of the minor.
Read MoreAndler v. Andler (Kansas 1975)
A parent is entitled to credit for Social Security payments by the government against his or her liability for child support under a divorce decree to the extent of, but not exceeding, his or her monthly obligation for child support.
Read MoreBrady v. Brady (Kansas 1979)
When a child attains the age of majority, or when a child goes to live with the other parent, or when a child dies, the obligation to pay support for that child should automatically cease and terminate unless an agreement provides otherwise.
Read MoreUnited States v. Morton (Federal, US Supreme Court, 1984)
An employer is not liable to a non-custodial parent for complying with an income withholding order appearing to be valid on its face from a state tribunal.
Read MoreSorenson v. Secretary of the Treasury (Federal, US Supreme Court, 1986)
An excess earned-income tax credit will be considered to be an “over-payment” to the Internal Revenue Service and therefore is eligible for a tax intercept by a state child support agency for satisfaction of owed child support payments.
Read MoreRose v. Rose (Federal, US Supreme Court, 1987)
A state court has jurisdiction to hold a disabled veteran in contempt for failing to pay child support, even if the veteran’s only means of satisfying his obligation is to use veteran’s benefits received as compensation for a service connected disability.
Read MoreHooks v. Hooks (Kansas 1988)
A valid judgment for child support arrearages may be collected and enforced in the same manner as any other final judgment.
Read MoreHicks v. Feiock (US 1988)
If both civil and criminal relief is imposed in the same action, then the criminal feature of the order is dominant and fixes its character a criminal for purposes of review and burdens of proof.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Peak (Kansas 1989)
A child support obligation terminates “when a child goes to live with the other parent” is clarified and restricted to situations where a permanent change of residence is involved.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Walje (Kansas 1994)
Where support is paid directly to custodial parent, rather than through the channels specified in the support order, the non-custodial parent who has not fully complied with the support order and will be found to be in arrearages.
Read MoreRocha v. Rocha (Wyoming 1996)
In a divorce action, a trial court has discretion in concluding that a father’s child support payments can or cannot offset the parties’ original property settlement.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Jones (Kansas 1996)
When a party neglects to assert a right or claim for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time and the lapse of time and other circumstances cause prejudice to the adverse party, relief is denied on the grounds of laches. The mere passage of time is not enough to invoke laches. The court must consider…
Read MoreHollingshead v. Hollingshead (Wyoming 1997)
In the absence of statute, a decree for periodic payments of child support creates sequential judgments enforceable under the statutory procedures for enforcement of judgments.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Scott (Kansas 1998)
Income withholding for purposes of enforcement of child support obligations is provided by Kansas statute.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Schoby (Kansas 2000)
Child support may be modified at any time circumstances render such a change proper, but the modification operates prospectively only.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Burton (Kansas 2001)
The doctrine of laches is applicable in child support cases.
Read MoreUnion Pac. R.R. v. Trona Valley Credit Union (Wyoming 2002)
Child support garnishments have priority and if more than 25% of an employee’s disposable income is withheld, creditor garnishments are not permissible.
Read MoreUnion Pac. R.R. v. Trona Valley Credit Union (Wyoming 2002)
Child support wage withholding has priority over any other garnishments.
Read MoreIn re Parentage of Shade ex rel. Shade (Kansas 2006)
Defendants in paternity support actions may not invoke the defense of laches as a bar to the enforcement of moral and legal obligations to their minor children.
Read MoreStarkey v. Starkey (Wyoming 2007)
Father cannot receive credit against arrears based on prior voluntary overpayments.
Read MoreSwain v. The State of Wyoming (Wyoming 2009)
A civil contempt is remedial and the penalty serves to enforce compliance with a court order.
Read MoreState ex rel. SRS v. Cleland (Kansas 2009)
A child support judgment that was not void as of July 1, 2007, shall not become dormant, except that the judgment shall cease to operate as a lien on the real estate of the judgment debtor as of the date the judgment would have become dormant.
Read MoreState ex rel. SRS v. Cleland (Kansas 2009)
A trial court’s application or denial of the doctrine of laches is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Read MoreTurner v. Rogers (Federal, US Supreme Court, 2011)
The state does not necessarily need to provide counsel to an unrepresented non-custodial parent if the state has procedural safeguards in place. Those safeguards include (1) notice to the defendant that his ability to pay is a critical issue in the contempt proceeding; (2) the use of a form or the equivalent to elicit relevant…
Read MoreIn re Adoption of RMS (Wyoming 2011)
The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that mother willfully failed to support her child.
Read MoreGrenz v. State, Dept. of Family Services, Child Support Enforcement (Wyoming 2011)
A father cannot recover overpayments or have them applied to his future support obligations.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Hohmann and Hohmann (Kansas 2012)
Lump-sum social security disability benefits received by mother on behalf of her minor children because of father’s disability may be credited toward father’s child support arrearage that accumulated during the months covered by the lump-sum payment.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Hohmann and Hohmann (Kansas 2012)
Lump-sum social security disability benefits received by mother on behalf of her minor children because of father’s disability may be credited toward father’s child support arrearage that accumulated during the months covered by the lump-sum payment.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Taber (Kansas 2012)
Lump-sum Social Security disability insurance payments for back benefits received by mother on behalf of her minor child because of father’s disability may be credited toward father’s child support arrearage that accumulated during the months covered by the lump-sum payments.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Taber (Kansas 2012)
Lump-sum Social Security disability insurance payments for back benefits received by mother on behalf of her minor child because of father’s disability may be credited toward father’s child support arrearage that accumulated during the months covered by the lump-sum payments.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Brown (Kansas 2012)
If a motion for modification has not been filed, any court-ordered modification operates prospectively only, and the district court is not authorized to vacate or discharge past-due child support.
Read MoreIn re Adoption of AMP (Wyoming 2010)
A district court has the authority to determine the credibility of witnesses and willfulness not to pay support based on the specific facts of each case.
Read MoreWalker v. Walker (Wyoming 2013)
District courts have both inherent and statutory authority to enforce their orders through contempt sanctions.
Read MoreMaley v. State of Kansas (Kansas 2013)
A grievance based on the garnishment of social security disability benefits by the Kansas Child Support Collection Division is meritless.
Read MoreDep’t of Family Servs. v. Currier (Wyoming 2013)
The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process did not require the State of Wyoming to provide an indigent party with counsel in a civil contempt proceeding for nonpayment of child support, because Wyoming had sufficient substitute procedural safeguards to protect indigent obligors against the possibility of wrongful incarceration.
Read More