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

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.

Griffin v. Griffin (Tennessee 2020)

August 2020

The trial court’s determination of child support will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The father appealed a decree of divorce awarding primary custody of the children to the mother, dividing the marital estate, and calculating support. Specific to support, the father argued the trial court didn’t calculate each parent’s income correctly. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the determination of the mother’s income.

State v. Andreasen and Henley (Nebraska 2020)

August 2020

A deviation in the amount of presumptive child support is allowed when applying the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate. Any deviation must be in the child’s best interests. The mother appealed an order denying her request to move out of state with the child, granting physical custody to the child to father, and ordering her to pay support. Specific to child support, she argued the trial court abused its discretion in not deviating from presumptive support for her other children, extended parenting time, and transportation costs. The appellate court affirmed the order.

Hobbs v. Golden (Nebraska 2020)

August 2020

Evidence must support the amount of income that a court attributes to a parent. The mother filed to modify custody and child support for one child. Specific to the child support issue, the father was a plumber. He testified that he earned an hourly wage or commissions, whichever was higher. A paystub entered into evidence showed he was more often paid commission than the hourly wage. The court calculated income using his hourly wage and gave the father credit for a subsequently born child and payment of health insurance premiums. The court didn’t give the mother credit for an additional child. Support was reduced. The mother appealed the final order.

Werner v. Werner (Nebraska 2020)

August 2020

To modify a support order, a parent must show a material change in circumstances that occurred after the entry of the latest order and that wasn’t contemplated upon entry of the order. The Nebraska order at issue in this case involved a split custody arrangement. The older child lived with the father, and the younger child lived with the mother in Minnesota. The mother was ordered to pay support until the oldest child reached the age of majority. Then, support would stop. The parents agreed that father wouldn’t pay support for the younger child so as to accommodate for travel expenses for visitation. The mother filed to modify the order.

Chalmers v. Burrough (Kansas 2020)

July 2020

A parent must substantially comply with the requirements in the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to register an out-of-state order for enforcement and modification. The father filed to register and modify a Florida child support order in Kansas. The father didn’t attach a copy of the Florida order, which was required in the statute. The mother didn’t file an answer within the required 20 days. The trial court registered and modified the order. The mother moved to dismiss the case, arguing the registration didn’t comply with the statutory requirements, which meant the trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted her motion.