Also known as: domestic support obligation · DSO · DSOs · alimony · child support
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A financial obligation arising from a marital or parental relationship that requires one party to provide monetary support to a spouse, former spouse, or child. Courts determine the amount by considering the needs of the recipient and the payer's ability to pay without regard to marital misconduct. These obligations receive special treatment in enforcement proceedings.
Denise Donovan hired a lawyer to pursue increased child support from her ex-husband. The lawyer proposed a fee equal to twenty percent of any increase obtained. The arrangement violates professional conduct rules because the payment depends on the amount of support recovered.
Dominic Drake owed years of unpaid child support. State law required him to obtain court approval before marrying. The restriction was invalidated because it substantially interfered with the fundamental right to marry without being narrowly tailored to state interests.
After separating, Doris Duffy sought child support for her two children from Damian Decker. The court considered the children's financial resources, the custodial parent's resources, and the noncustodial parent's ability to pay. It then ordered Decker to make monthly payments without regard to any misconduct during the marriage.
Diane Dawson stopped receiving financial support from her husband after he left the home. She filed a petition seeking alimony and child support during the pending divorce. The court evaluated her need and his ability to pay before awarding monthly payments.
A New York support order required payments until the child reached age twenty-one. After the custodial parent registered the order in North Carolina, the noncustodial parent argued that payments should end at age eighteen under North Carolina law. The court held that New York law on emancipation continued to govern the obligation.
Daphne Doyle filed a diversity action in federal court seeking enforcement of an existing state alimony decree against her former spouse. The court dismissed the suit under the domestic relations exception because the claim sought issuance or modification of a support decree rather than simple enforcement of an existing judgment.
In September 1989 Carol Ankenbrandt, a citizen of Missouri, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of her daughters L. R. and S. R. against Jon A. Richards and Debra Kesler, both citizens of Louisiana. The complaint alleged that Richards, the divorced father of the children, and Kesler, his female companion, had committed acts of sexual and physical abuse against the daughters and sought monetary damages. Federal jurisdiction rested solely on the diversity-of-citizenship provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. One month earlier, on August 9, 1989, a juvenile court in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, had entered a judgment under state child-protection statutes that permanently terminated Richards' parental rights on account of the alleged abuse and permanently enjoined him from any contact with the children. On December 10, 1990, the District Court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss. The court cited In re Burrus for the proposition that the whole subject of domestic relations belongs to the laws of the States and invoked the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction. It also relied on the abstention principles of Younger v. Harris to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to three questions concerning the existence and scope of any domestic relations exception and the propriety of Younger abstention in the case.
Professional conduct rules bar any fee in a domestic relations matter that is contingent on securing a divorce or on the amount of alimony, support, or property settlement. The prohibition prevents lawyers from having a financial stake that could encourage unnecessary litigation or inflated demands.
A statute that conditions the right to marry on payment of child support or court permission interferes with a fundamental constitutional right. Such a law is invalid unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and narrowly tailored to achieve only those interests.
…published by the State describing the fetus and providing information about medical assistance for childbirth, information about child support from the father, and a list of agencies which provide adoption and other services as alternatives to abortion. An abortion may not be performed unless the woman certifies in writing that…
…movement of some relevant object, thereby regulating local criminal activity or, for that matter, family affairs. See, e. g. , Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, 18 U. S. C. § 228. Although this possibility does not give the Federal Government the power to regulate everything, it means that any substantive limitation will apply…
…New Jersey court. The complaint was for a divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty, and sought (among other things) spousal and child support
…convincing proof to the court that for reasonable cause he or she was not able to comply with a previous court obligation for child support." The dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST suggests that appellee may no longer be "incapable of discharging the arrearage as required by the
…or "semicore," category involves declarations of rights or obligations arising from status (or former status), e. g., alimony, child support
Courts examine the financial resources of the child, the financial resources of the custodial parent, the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not dissolved, the physical and emotional condition of the child, and the financial resources and needs of the noncustodial parent.
In many jurisdictions a spouse may petition for alimony and child support at any time based solely on the need for funds and the other spouse's ability to pay. The petition does not require a simultaneous request for divorce or legal separation.
Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act the law of the issuing state controls the nature, amount, and duration of the support obligation, including the age of emancipation. The registering state must apply the issuing state's rules even when they differ from local law.
The exception is narrow and bars federal diversity jurisdiction only over actions seeking the issuance of divorce, alimony, or child custody decrees. Federal courts may still enforce or maintain actions upon existing state domestic decrees.