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

Eidson v. Kakouras (North Carolina 2022)

November 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.

MDHS v. Reaves (Mississippi 2022)

November 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.

Taylor v. Taylor (Tennessee 2022)

October 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.”

Green v. Green (Mississippi 2022)

October 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.

States Should Use New Guidance to Stop Charging Parents for Foster Care, Prioritize Family Reunification

October 2022

The federal Administration for Children & Families recently issued new policy guidance that allows state agencies to stop referring Title IV-E foster care cases for the establishment of a child support order. The old policy had very little benefit. These families are low-income. A support obligation takes money out of an already financially fragile family. Collecting support wasn’t cost-efficient. The new guidance promotes reunification efforts and help the custodial parent maintain the family home.

Ponder v. Ponder (Mississippi 2022)

October 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.

Characteristics of Complex Families in Maryland’s Child Support Caseload

September 2022

A complex family is a family in which a parent has children with more than one partner. Complex families are growing in Maryland’s child support caseload. These families include non-custodial parents with multiple support orders and parents who are custodians and non-custodians. To better serve and understand them, Maryland studies the characteristics of complex families; their demographics, economic resources, and child support characteristics and outcomes; and the impact of child support paid or received on parents’ earnings.

Gathering and Using Family Input to Improve Child Support and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Approaches from the Human Services Field

September 2022

Human services agencies are finding great value of engaging the families they serve in designing programs. Doing this helps combat issues of access, quality, and equity and ensures the families’ needs are being met. This brief provides examples of human-centered design practices and how agencies use the input to inform policy and operations. 

Applying Human-Centered Design to Human Services: Pilot Study Findings

September 2022

Human-Centered Design (HCD) is way of developing solutions to service delivery challenges with the end-user in mind. The Administration for Children and Families recently studies the application of HCD principles to its human services programs. The Washington State Division of Child Support was one of three pilot sites. Washington wanted to apply HCD to improve its modification request process.

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

September 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.