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

Tyler F. v. Sara P. (Nebraska 2020)

July 2020

A properly executed paternity acknowledgement conclusively established paternity and cannot be set aside without a showing of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. The Nebraska paternity statutes do not currently account for multiple legal parents for a child. This case is the latest appeal in an ongoing paternity action. On remand from Tyler F. v. Sara P., 24. Neb. App. 370 (2016), the district court considered if the child’s biological father had standing in his individual capacity to bring a paternity action. The trial court found the biological father could bring his action as an individual and that the biological father had waived the statute of limitations defense. The trial court declined to set aside the paternity acknowledgment and ordered custody, visitation, and support for all three parents. Both fathers appealed. 

Price v. Biggs (North Carolina 2020)

July 2020

In a civil contempt proceeding, the burden is on the moving party to prove contempt. The trial court must address each contempt element in the order. The mother filed a motion to modify child support. At the first hearing, the mother presented her evidence. At the close of her case, the trial court didn’t hear from the father. Instead, the court asked the parties attempt to settle the matter. Settlement failed, and the trial court held a second hearing. Each parent had 25 minutes to present evidence. The trial court denied the father’s request for additional time. The order after hearing found the father in contempt for failure to pay child support.

Israel v. Israel (North Carolina 2020)

July 2020

Food stamps, or electronic food and nutrition benefits, are not income for child support purposes. The parents in this case divorced, and the father was ordered to pay support for their six children. The parents filed competing motions for contempt and to modify child support. The court modified support. The father appealed. He argued the trial court didn’t calculate the mother’s income correctly and wrongfully imputed income to him. The court of appeals upheld the order.

Foy v. Kite (North Carolina 2020)

July 2020

In a child support case, if the record clearly supports the income calculation, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s determination. An order for retroactive child support must include findings as to the reasonableness of the expenses for which reimbursement is sought. The mother and father, who were not married, had one child. The mother filed a petition to establish support and for retroactive support. The mother had worked for the father’s business, a dog training and breeding operation, and testified about his business practices and income. The trial court calculated his income from the mother’s testimony, financial records, and adding back in an appropriate amount for rent.

State v. Ian K. (Nebraska 2020)

July 2020

The state is not authorized to bring a paternity action for a child who is not born out-of-wedlock. The mother and husband were married and had a child. Genetic testing later proved the husband wasn’t the child’s biological father. The State filed a petition to establish paternity for the biological father and effectively disestablish the husband’s paternity. The Juvenile Court order granted the State’s request. The husband appealed. 

In re Easton (Tennessee 2020)

July 2020

This appeal turns on the procedural differences between an action for dependency/neglect as opposed to an action for a paternity/visitation. The biological father of this child started this action by filing, pro se, a dependency/neglect petition in juvenile court, in which he clearly pled for custody of the child or alternatively, visitation without an obligation for support. After several hearings, the juvenile court entered an order naming the father the primary residential parent. The mother appealed to the circuit court, which has jurisdiction over appeals of dependency/neglect actions.

Olander v. McPhillips (Nebraska 2020)

June 2020

A hearing transcript is required when there is an evidentiary hearing. The mother and father, who were not married, had a child. A court order established paternity and addressed child support and visitation. The father filed to modify the paternity order. After several hearings, the trial court modified several provisions of the order, including reducing the child support amount. The mother filed to vacate the modified order. The trial court indicated it would hold an evidentiary hearing on the child support issues. After the unreported hearing, the trial court denied the motion to vacate. 

Piling on Debt: The Intersections Between Child Support Arrears and Legal Financial Obligations

June 2020

This article examines the whys and hows of child support arrears as an unmanageable debt. It takes a special look at the child support arrears that accumulate during a parent’s incarceration. The article identifies several factors that contribute to the build-up of arrears including support orders that the parent can’t reasonably pay and enforcement measures that inhibit a parent’s ability to find a job such as driver’s license suspension.

Van Fleet v. Guyette (Wyoming 2020)

June 2020

A parent can’t disregard a statutory requirement then complain about its outcome. This matter came before the court on a modification of custody. With respect to child support, the court ordered both parents to file a financial affidavit. The mother filed hers along with supporting information. The father didn’t, and the court found him in contempt. The contempt order gave him an additional opportunity to file the affidavit. Otherwise, the mother was directed to file an affidavit of imputed income and allege his income.

People in Interest of S.C.

June 2020

The section of Colorado statute which adopted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) gives parties the right to testify by phone. The state of Missouri asked the state of Colorado to establish paternity with respect to the minor child. The father lived in Colorado. The mother had an outstanding warrant for her arrest in Colorado. She declined to appear at the proceeding in person. The magistrate refused to hear telephone testimony and entered an order closing the case. The district court affirmed the order. The child support agency appealed. The appellate court issued an order to show case ordering the child support agency to show the order was a final, appealable order.