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

Sanchez v. Sanchez (Nebraska 2020)

December 2020

If a parent earns or reasonably expects to earn overtime, the overtime income should be included in the parent’s income for child support. If the income is speculative, then it can be excluded. The mother, who paid support, filed to modify the parenting time and child support terms of the divorce decree due to a change in her work schedule. The mother worked as a corrections officer and earned significant overtime. According to mother, some overtime was mandatory, due to staffing shortages, and other overtime was voluntary. Both parents submitted proposed child support worksheets. The father’s calculation included the overtime income. The mother’s didn’t. The district court adopted the father’s worksheet and increased child support.

State of Tennessee ex rel. Kimberly C. v. Gordon S. (Tennessee 2020)

November 2020

A voluntary acknowledgement of paternity (VAP) is a legal finding of paternity but can be set aside for material mistake of fact. The burden of proof is on the parent challenging the VAP. The father signed a VAP knowing that he was not the child’s biological parent. The parents broke up, and the State filed to establish support. The father filed to dismiss the petition, arguing that there was a material mistake of fact and he requested genetic testing. The juvenile court denied the request for genetic testing, declined to set aside the VAP, and ordered support. The father appealed.

Henson v. Carosella (Nebraska 2020)

November 2020

Child support should be based on parent’s current earnings. The father appealed the child support provision of the final divorce decree. He argued the court’s determination of his income ignored evidence of his actual earnings. The father, an apprentice steamfitter, was about to be qualified as a journeyman. He worked more than 40 hours per week regularly. The court of appeals upheld the child support award.

Kelly v. Kelly (Nebraska 2020)

November 2020

Parents may be responsible for reasonable and necessary expenses on top of the monthly child support award. The final divorce decree ordered the father to pay monthly support and a percentage of the children’s private school tuition, extracurricular activities, and other miscellaneous expenses like school lunch and clothing. The father appealed. 

In re Humphries (Kansas 2020)

November 2020

The requirement that a parent pay unreimbursed medical expenses is not self-executing. A court must order it. In the initial order, the father was ordered to pay half of the child’s unreimbursed medical expenses. In post-divorce litigation, a judgment was entered against the father for these expenses. The father appealed the order arguing the imposition of the judgment violated his due process rights.

Marquis v. Marquis (Wyoming 2020)

November 2020

Evidence must support a parent’s request to exclude business expenses from net income. The parent seeking to deduct the business expense has the burden of proof. The father filed to modify custody, visitation, and support, and the mother responded with a petition to modify support. The parents settled all matters except support. They agreed to submit written arguments and their proposed calculations and supporting documents to the district court to consider without the need for a hearing. The father owned his own business. To calculate his income, the district court added his personal and business income and then deducted income taxes and depreciation for three years.

State ex rel. Gray v. Daugherty (Tennessee 2020)

November 2020

A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be supported with evidence at trial. The State filed a motion for relief from an arrears judgment alleging that the father had been given credit for a payment made to the mother by an NCP on a different case. At the hearing, the State argued in support of its motion but didn’t put on any evidence. The trial court granted the State’s motion and amended the judgement amount. The father appealed arguing that the State failed to prove its motion.

Gandara-Moore v. Moore (Nebraska 2020)

November 2020

A court may use a parent’s earning capacity instead of actual income to determine child support when a parent voluntarily leaves a job. The parents filed for divorce. The trial court used mother’s earning capacity to calculate support instead of her actual income. Her actual income source was unemployment benefits. The mother appealed the child support calculation as well as other provisions of the final decree.

In re W.L. and G.L. (Kansas 2020)

November 2020

The unmarried partner of a same sex couple can be recognized as a legal parent under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-2208(a)(4) presumption of maternity. The appellant filed to establish parentage of the twins born to her same-sex partner. The district court denied the petition, which the court of appeals upheld. The Supreme Court reversed. An unmarried partner only needs to establish that she notoriously held out a child in order to meet the requirements of a presumption of paternity under in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-2208(a)(4).

In re MF (Kansas 2020)

November 2020

A same-sex partner, who didn’t give birth to a child, can be recognized as a parent using K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-2208(a)(4) when the child’s birth parent consented to shared parenting at the time of the child’s birth. This case came before the Supreme Court on appeal from lower court decisions denying a same-sex partner parentage rights because there was no enforceable oral parenting contract between the partners. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts.