Skip to main content
Log in Create account

Did You Know?

Context about the child-support system that affects families. Informational, not legal advice.

Constitutional foundation: a parent's right to parent

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that parents have a fundamental liberty interest, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, in the care, custody, and control of their children. A fit parent is presumed to act in the child's best interests, and the government generally may not override a fit parent's child-rearing decisions, or sever the parent-child relationship, without a heightened showing.

  • Troxel v. Granville (2000): the State must give special weight to a fit parent's decisions; it cannot override them merely because a judge would decide differently. 530 U.S. 57
  • Santosky v. Kramer (1982): the State must prove parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence before terminating parental rights. 455 U.S. 745

The First Amendment also protects parents in directing their children's religious upbringing and associations. In short, a natural parent's right to raise their child without undue state intrusion is constitutionally protected — the State generally must show unfitness or harm to interfere.

Note: these protections apply to State / third-party interference with a fit parent. In a dispute between two fit parents, courts apply the “best interest of the child” standard. This is general background, not legal advice.

Which court & law governs your case — jurisdiction

Custody and support are decided under the law of a specific state — generally where the case is filed or the child's home state — not where you happen to be browsing. Pick the case's state to see the controlling custody standard and the federal acts that decide which state has jurisdiction and how orders move between states.

The federal law that powers child support: Title IV-D

Almost everything the “child support system” does — locating a parent, establishing paternity, setting an order, withholding wages, intercepting tax refunds, suspending licenses — runs on one federal program: Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 651–669b). Each state runs its own IV-D agency, but it does so under federal rules, with federal funding, and federal performance incentives. Here is where that power actually comes from, with links to the primary law.

The federal department

The program is overseen by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) — known from 2023 to 2025 as the Office of Child Support Services (OCSS), before the name reverted on December 19, 2025 (2023 renaming notice). It sits within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), part of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) (acf.gov/css). OCSE operates the Federal Parent Locator Service, runs the federal tax-refund offset and passport-denial programs, approves each state plan, audits the data, and distributes the performance incentives.

The statutes that give it power

  • 42 U.S.C. §§ 651–669b — Title IV-D of the Social Security Act — the federal child-support enforcement program itself (with some sections since repealed).
  • 42 U.S.C. § 651 — Purpose and appropriation: enforcing support, locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining support.
  • 42 U.S.C. § 652 — Duties of the HHS Secretary over the program; § 652(k) directs passport denial for certified arrears over $2,500.
  • 42 U.S.C. § 653 / § 653a — The Federal Parent Locator Service and the State Directory of New Hires — the national systems used to find parents and employers.
  • 42 U.S.C. § 654 — State-plan requirements every state IV-D agency must meet; § 654(29) is the TANF cooperation / good-cause requirement.
  • 42 U.S.C. § 657 — How collected support is distributed among the family, the state, and the federal government.
  • 42 U.S.C. § 658a — Incentive payments to states: a federal pool ($483 million in FY2008, raised each year by CPI) split among states by performance. Subsection (f) requires a state to spend the full payment to supplement, and not supplant, its child-support program — it is not general state revenue.
  • 42 U.S.C. § 664 — Federal tax-refund offset — Treasury intercepts an obligor’s refund for past-due support.
  • 42 U.S.C. § 666 — The enforcement tools every state must have: income withholding, liens (a)(4), credit-bureau reporting (a)(7), license suspension (a)(16), and financial-institution data match (a)(17).
  • 42 U.S.C. § 667 — Requires each state to adopt support guidelines that carry a rebuttable presumption of correctness.
  • 42 U.S.C. § 608(a)(2)–(3) — The TANF conditions: a family must assign its support rights to the state and cooperate with child support to receive assistance.

The implementing regulations

  • 45 C.F.R. Part 302 — State-plan requirements for the IV-D program.
  • 45 C.F.R. § 302.56 — Requires statewide guidelines, a rebuttable presumption, and review at least every four years.
  • 45 C.F.R. Part 303 — Standards for program operations (locate, establishment, enforcement, case processing).
  • 45 C.F.R. Part 305 / § 264.30 — Performance measures and incentives; the TANF cooperation rule with its good-cause and domestic-violence waiver.

The enforcement tools the federal law requires states to have

Under 42 U.S.C. § 666 (and related sections), every state must have — and use, in appropriate cases — these tools:

  • Income withholding from the obligor’s paycheck (§ 666(a)(1), (a)(8)).
  • Federal tax-refund intercept (§ 664).
  • Passport denial for arrears over $2,500 (§ 652(k); U.S. State Department).
  • License suspension — driver’s, professional/occupational, and recreational/sporting (§ 666(a)(16)).
  • Financial Institution Data Match (FIDM) — automated bank-account matches to find delinquent obligors (§ 666(a)(17)).
  • Liens on property (§ 666(a)(4)) and credit-bureau reporting (§ 666(a)(7)).
  • New-hire reporting by employers (§ 653a).

Civil contempt is not on that list, and it is worth being precise about why. Jailing a parent for nonpayment is not a § 666 federal mandate — it comes from a state court’s own authority. In Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011), the Supreme Court held that an indigent, unrepresented parent facing civil contempt is not automatically entitled to appointed counsel, but that due process requires adequate alternative safeguards — notice that ability to pay is the critical question, a form eliciting financial information, an opportunity to respond, and an express finding on ability to pay. The Court expressly reserved the different case where the opposing party is the State represented by counsel. It is a floor of procedure for a specific situation, not a blanket rule that every contempt proceeding requires an ability-to-pay finding.

Want the part that affects families who apply for public assistance — the assignment and cooperation conditions, and where they touch your constitutional rights? See Benefits, cooperation & your constitutional rights. This section is general information with links to the primary law — not legal advice.

What a Guardian ad Litem evaluates — best-interest factors

Broader background: Determining the Best Interests of the Child explains how courts generally define and weigh best interests across states and territories.

Loading the statutory best-interest factors…

What do celebrities pay in child support?

High-profile, high-earner cases are a useful (if extreme) window into how child-support guidelines, high-earner deviations, and state income caps actually play out. We compiled well-documented public cases — each with its state, number of children, custody/placement arrangement, and the legal basis — every figure linking its source.

Educational and neutral. Reported figures are media estimates, may include spousal support, and many have been modified since — not a benchmark for any real case and not legal advice.

See the celebrity child-support table →

Prominent cases every parent should know

  • Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) — parents' liberty to direct their children's upbringing and education. 262 U.S. 390
  • Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) — the State may not standardize children by forcing one mode of upbringing; parents have the right to direct it. 268 U.S. 510
  • Santosky v. Kramer (1982) — clear-and-convincing-evidence standard to terminate parental rights. 455 U.S. 745
  • Troxel v. Granville (2000) — special weight to a fit parent's decisions. 530 U.S. 57
  • Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC (1984) — agency deference. Overruled by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024): courts, not agencies, now say what the law means. 467 U.S. 837

Look up a case on CourtListener

CourtListener (a free Free Law Project service) hosts millions of court opinions and dockets you can search by party name, docket number, or citation — useful for reading the controlling law in your jurisdiction and tracking a case.

Search CourtListener →

Tip: search your own case by party surname or docket number. When you are signed in with a loaded family workspace, the link above is prefilled with your family surname; for everyone else it stays generic because this page is public.

Business owners & K-1 "phantom income" — moved to its own page

The full, source-verified treatment of how Wisconsin counts a business-owner parent's income for child support — the Weis & Winters two-part control-and-business-purpose test, its codification in DCF 150, the federal Subchapter S / partnership "phantom income" mechanism, sister-state authority, and what happens to a former owner who sells the business — now lives on a dedicated page:

Child support for business owners & former owners →

Informational summary, not legal advice — read the full opinions and consult counsel.

Homeschooling vs. conventional school — and what happens when parents disagree

Where compulsory schooling actually came from (several of the most-repeated claims about it do not survive checking against the primary documents), how homeschooling is regulated in all fifty states and DC, an hour-by-hour daily time budget for both — including the teaching parent's hours, which most comparisons quietly omit — and what the outcomes research does and does not show once selection bias is taken seriously.

For separated parents the key point is statutory: Wis. Stat. § 767.001(2m) expressly lists "choice of school" among the major decisions legal custody governs. Under joint legal custody, neither parent can move a child into — or out of — homeschooling unilaterally.

Homeschooling: origins, law, hours, and the evidence →

Informational summary, not legal advice — consult counsel in your own jurisdiction.

“I filed only to protect the child's rights” — test the stated purpose

Legal parentage, a birth record, intestate inheritance, support, legal custody, and physical placement are related but distinct. A new, source-verified guide explains when Wisconsin permits voluntary acknowledgment without contested litigation, why support is not ownership of a parent's income, and how to compare a narrow stated purpose with the actual placement and financial relief requested—without diagnosing either parent's motives.

Paternity, support, and placement: test the stated purpose →

States are paid federal incentives for child-support (IV-D) performance

The federal government pays states an annual incentive payment for their Title IV-D child-support programs. Under 42 U.S.C. § 658a, incentives are based on child-support collections and a state's performance on five federal performance measures (with data-reliability audits). In short: more collections and higher measured performance mean a larger share of that pool for the state.

Two features of the statute matter just as much, and are usually left out. 42 U.S.C. § 658a(f) requires a state to spend the full amount of any incentive payment to "supplement, and not supplant" the funds it already uses to run its child-support program — the money cannot become general state revenue. And the national pool is fixed and adjusted only by CPI, so a state improving its numbers takes a larger slice of the same pie rather than enlarging the federal outlay. The incentive is real and it is worth understanding; it is a competition between states over a capped, ring-fenced fund, not a state profiting from an individual order.

Why it matters: the IV-D system that handles child-support establishment and collection carries a federal financial incentive tied to performance metrics, and a parent is entitled to know how the system that affects them is funded. It does not follow that a state or an agency profits from any particular order — § 658a(f) forecloses that reading, and the pool is capped. This is general information, not legal advice.

Federal law: Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 651–669b) · 42 U.S.C. § 658a (incentive payments)

Research library: child support & best interests

Public research on child-support guidelines, the cost of children, federal spending, and best-interest determinations. Each PDF is searchable; open to read in your browser or download. Sources are independent — provided for information, not as legal advice or BMD endorsement.

  • A Practice Guide: Making Child Support Orders Realistic and Enforceable

    National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), with the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), 2008

    A judicial bench guide for judges, quasi-judicial officials, and hearing officers on how courts apply child-support guidelines. Every state must have numeric guidelines that apply as a rebuttable presumption to the calculation of support, with written findings required to deviate. The cards cover determining income (including imputing income and earning capacity), the obligor’s ability to pay, retroactive and default orders, and federal medical-support requirements.

    Read / download PDF →

  • Kids’ Share 2023: Federal Expenditures on Children through 2022

    Urban Institute (Lou, Hahn, Maag, et al.), Nov 2023

    The Urban Institute’s annual analysis of how much the federal government spends on children — across health, income security, education, and tax provisions — with future projections.

    Read / download PDF →

  • The Monetary Cost of Raising Children

    Comanor, Sarro & Rogers

    Compares the presumptive child-support awards produced by typical state guidelines against the actual economic cost of raising children — the data states must consider in their quadrennial reviews.

    Read / download PDF →

  • Child Support: A Comparison of Income and Cost-Based Systems

    Jonathan Koch, Wisconsin for Children and Families, Aug 2021

    Compares Wisconsin’s percentage-of-income child-support guideline with the actual cost of children in joint-placement cases where both parents share placement.

    Read / download PDF →

  • Comparison of State Child Support Guidelines

    National guideline survey, Aug 2007

    A state-by-state reference on how child-support guidelines treat overtime and second-job income and how ordinary vs. extraordinary medical expenses are defined and built into the basic obligation.

    Read / download PDF →

  • Alternative Approaches to Income Imputation in Setting Child Support Orders

    Hodges, Taber & Smith, Institute for Research on Poverty, UW–Madison, 2019

    A study prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families examining methods courts use to impute income when setting child-support orders.

    Read / download PDF →

  • Poor Little Rich Kids: Revising Wisconsin’s Child Support System

    Kelly M. Dodd, Marquette Law Review, Vol. 83 (2000)

    A law-review analysis of how Wisconsin’s percentage-of-income standard applies to high-income payers and proposals to better tie awards to a child’s actual needs.

    Read / download PDF →

  • Handbook on Child Support Enforcement

    U.S. child-support enforcement program guide

    A reference guide to how the child-support enforcement (IV-D) program works: establishing paternity and orders, locating parents, collecting and distributing support, and parents’ rights and options.

    Read / download PDF →

  • Determining the Best Interests of the Child

    Child Welfare Information Gateway, Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS, 2024

    A national state-statutes publication explaining the best-interests-of-the-child standard, common guiding principles, statutory factors, constitutional considerations, sibling and family bonds, child wishes, and tribal-culture considerations.

    Read / download PDF →

BMD tools

More ways to use BMD beyond this page.