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

In re Marriage of Gronlie (Kansas 2020)

October 2020

Orders modifying child support are retroactive to the first day of the month following the filing of the motion to modify. The terms of the parents’ divorce decree set support for two children at a base amount and ordered the father to pay an additional percentage of his income if he earned more than $400,000. The older child emancipated and a new income withholding order was issued for half the base support amount. The father continued to pay the additional percentage of his income. The mother filed to modify support. The trial court recalculated support and set the effective date as the month following the filing of the petition.

In re Lask (Kansas 2020)

October 2020

The terms of the order will control what is considered an uninsured medical expense. These parents were operating under the terms of a modified divorce decree which divided uninsured medical expenses proportionately between them. The father, who earned significantly more, paid the bigger share. A child incurred significant bills due to stays in treatment. The mother filed for contempt alleging that the father had failed to pay his portion of uninsured medical expenses.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

Madrigal v. Madrigal (Kansas 2020)

August 2020

The decision to apply the extended income formula is discretionary. A district court entered an order increasing the father’s child support obligation and ordering sanctions against him for failing to disclose a material increase in his income. The district court applied the extended income formula to determine support. The father appealed arguing the order lacked findings to support the application of the extended formula and that the sanctions should be reduced to reflect the earliest time he could have known about the income increase.