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

Bishop v. Bishop (North Carolina 2020)

December 2020

A child’s reasonable needs are based upon the ability of the parents to provide. Trial courts have wide discretion when determining needs and can consider the parent’s lifestyle and standard of living. The mother filed to modify the divorce decree based on the father’s increased income. His income came from many sources: base salary, bonuses, and stock. The final order increased support and adjusted the percentages for unreimbursed medical expenses. The father appealed.

Procedural Justice Principles in the Midst of a Major Disruption

December 2020

The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) funded the Procedural Justice Alternatives to Contempt (PJAC) grant to explore the application of procedural justice principles to enforcing child support orders. The grant targets noncustodial parents who are about to be referred for contempt for not paying their child support but have the ability to pay. This brief addresses the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the project sites and the parents.

In re the Parental Responsibilities Concerning M.E.R. and D.E.R.-L (Colorado 2020)

December 2020

The Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA) does not prohibit the inclusion of a parent’s veteran’s disability benefits as income for child support. The father filed a proceeding to allocate parental responsibilities for his two children. With respect to child support, the father’s income consisted of military retirement and veteran’s benefits. The trial court included both sources in the father’s gross income and set child support. The father appealed, arguing the veteran’s benefits shouldn’t haven’t been included in his income because the veteran’s disability benefits are not insurance benefits, aren’t taxable, and federal law prohibits the inclusion.

Angel v. Sandoval (North Carolina 2020)

December 2020

If a parent is voluntarily underemployed, a court can use the parent’s earning capacity as income for child support. The mother filed to modify child support based on the father’s increase in income. The mother was not working, and the court set her income at zero. The final order substantially increased the father’s support. The father appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to impute income to the mother at her earning capacity rather than her actual income.

Baxter v. Rowan (Tennessee 2020)

December 2020

A valid paternity acknowledgement is the equivalent of a paternity order and grants a parent standing to sue for visitation. The father signed a paternity acknowledgement and several years later filed for visitation. The trial court granted the visitation. The mother appealed the final order for several reasons. Relevant to child support, she argued the father didn’t have standing to sue for visitation because the paternity acknowledgement was not a final parentage order.

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.

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. 

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.

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.