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

Lillard v. Lillard (Tennessee 2021)

March 2021

Child support can continue for beyond the age of 21 for children who are severely disabled; living under parental supervision, which is in the child’s best interests; and the obligor has the financial ability to pay support. The mother petitioned the court to modify child support and declare the child severely disabled. At hearing, the mother testified as to the daughter’s IQ, diagnosis, and her inability to live independently. The daughter hadn’t been able to hold a job, relied on the mother for transportation, and couldn’t manage money. She feared other people and couldn’t remember to perform basic personal care. The father cited her graduation from high school, ability to perform basic household tasks, and competition of a certificate program as reasons to stop support. The district court granted the mother’s motion and set support.

Bruce v. Bruce (Wyoming 2021)

March 2021

The trial court’s child support order will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. The parents divorced. The final decree ordered the father pay child support for the child and half of the travel expenses. The father appealed the order arguing the court should have attributed a higher income to the mother, erred in awarding retroactive support and in denying a deviation for travel expenses.

Halterman v. Halterman (North Carolina 2021)

March 2021

A foreign support order must be properly registered under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) for a court to have subject matter jurisdiction for enforcement and modification. The mother, a resident of North Carolina, filed to register three Florida custody and support orders. The father, a resident of Virginia, filed to dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to comply with UIFSA. The trial court granted the motion and the mother appealed.

Greer v. Greer (Mississippi 2021)

March 2021

A parent who fails to pursue a paternity challenge will not be provided with post-trial relief. The mother became pregnant while separated from the father. The parents reconciled and the baby was given the father’s last name. When the parents filed for divorce, the father requested genetic testing for the younger child. His request was granted, and he was ordered to schedule and pay for the testing, which he failed to do. He also didn’t appear at the divorce hearing. In the final decree, he was ordered to pay support for the parties two children. The father appealed arguing the court should have determined paternity for the younger child before granting the divorce.

Civil Contempt of Court for Child Support Noncompliance at the PJAC Demonstration Sites

February 2021

The federal Procedural Justice-Informed Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC) demonstration project was a federally-funded project to study the effectiveness of using procedural justice methods to enforce child support orders. Civil contempt is a possible enforcement tool. This brief considers the application of procedural justice methods to the contempt process. Contempt is an enforcement tools of last resort and is historically adversarial. Several of the PJAC sites worked with the courts to soften the adversarial nature in an attempt to make the process feel fair and to ensure parents had their questions answered.

Julie C.W. v. Frank Mitchell W. Jr. (Tennessee 2021)

February 2021

The trial court has discretion over deviations from presumptive child support. In this divorce proceeding, there was a large income disparity. The father was an extremely high earner. The mother requested an upward deviation in child support. The final decree set support at the presumptive amount and ordered the mother to pay 10 percent of the uncovered medical. The decree acknowledged the father’s agreement to pay for the children’s private school tuition and up to $600 per month for extracurricular activities. The mother appealed.

Parenting Time and Child Support: Information for Fatherhood Programs and Fathers

February 2021

Fatherhood programs play an important role in helping fathers understand and address legal issues such as child support and supporting the fathers in building relationships with their children and coparent. While child support and visitation are separate legal issues, research shows the two are by nature connected and benefit each other.

Mercer v. Chiarella (Tennessee 2021)

February 2021

The court of appeals will not consider issues of first impression on appeal. The divorce decree ordered the father pay child support. He filed to modify based on a decrease in his income. The father’s main source of income was interest on loans he made to other people. As the principal balance of the loans decreased, so did the amount of interest the father received. The court entered an order modifying support down based on his 2019 income. 

Brown v. Brown (Wyoming 2021)

February 2021

Unless an order contains the required findings, a child support order is assumed to be presumptive support and only requires a change in amount for modification. The original divorce decree ordered the father to pay support. He later filed to modify the divorce decree. The final order modified support based on an increase in the support amount sufficient to meet the required twenty percent change. The father appealed.

Kelly v. Kelly (Nebraska 2021)

February 2021

Child support orders set under the guidelines are presumably correct. The divorce decree in this case ordered the father to pay child support. The amount included an upward deviation to account for the father’s share of expenses. The father was also ordered to provide health insurance. In 2018, The father lost his job, and the mother began providing health insurance. The mother filed to modify custody and support and the father counterclaimed. In the order for modification, specific to support, the trial court used the father’s proposed calculation to set support, which used the mother’s 2018 income rather than her current, actual income. The order discontinued the deviation and set out a detailed expense sharing plan. The trial court declined to give the mother retroactive credit for her provision of health insurance. The mother appealed.

Pages