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.
Child Support Cooperation Requirements in Child Care Subsidy Programs and SNAP: Key Policy Considerations
This brief, part of the EMPOWERED Study conducted on behalf of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, presents findings from a formative examination of the use of child support cooperation requirements among child care subsidy programs and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This brief provides context for important policy discussions on the use of child support cooperation requirements by summarizing findings from an exploratory examination of the current landscape of optional cooperation requirements. Based on a scan and targeted interviews in eight states, the brief offers a national snapshot of the current status of states’ adoption of cooperation requirements for child care subsidy and SNAP recipients, an overview of the process used to implement the requirement and key points in the process that states have flexibility to shape policy, and highlights areas ripe for future research. The brief was prepared under contract #HHSP233201500035I / HHSP23337027T.
Bruton v. Bruton (Mississippi 2018)
If a child support award is above the guideline amount, the Court must justify the award. In his case, the original divorce decree required the father to pay support plus day care and 60 percent of the children’s private school tuition and fees.
Pettersen v. Pettersen (Mississippi 2018)
The court has discretion to set support for the time period before a divorce is filed. If support is set, it can only go back to one year before the filing of the action. The parents in this case filed for divorce.
Osborn v. Anderson (Kansas 2018)
An annulment order doesn’t revoke a paternity acknowledgment without language to that effect. In this case, the father signed a paternity affidavit knowing that he wasn’t the child’s biological father. The father and mother married, but ended their marriage with a judicial annulment.
Kendle v. Kendle (Tennessee 2018)
When determining if it can honor a garnishment notice, an employer has no obligation to consider any garnishments already in place with another employer. The father in this case had two employers.
Gordon v. Gordon (Tennessee 2018)
Deviations from presumptive child support must be supported by specific reasons. In this case, the parents agreed to an upward deviation in child support in the initial support order.
County of Durham v. Burnette (North Carolina 2018)
Evidence of a parent’s willful refusal to pay a child support order and ability to pay purge conditions must support a contempt order. The father had two child support orders, and the County of Durham initiated contempt proceedings on both orders.
Millen v. Hatter (Tennessee 2018)
The Tennessee Department of Human Services (TDHS) issued an administrative order to garnish the father’s bank account for unpaid child support.
Burgess v. Williamson (Mississippi 2018)
A parent cannot challenge the court’s jurisdiction over an initial order in subsequent proceedings. The father, the custodial parent, filed a motion to hold mother in contempt for failure to pay support. The mother filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Crews v. Paysour (North Carolina 2018)
On remand, a trial court may consider new evidence in a child support hearing. If it doesn’t, the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the order must be based on the existing record. The appellate court remanded the initial order in this case for further findings.