[Orangedog]

As a matter of procedure, you are correct. As a matter of practice, it's another story entirely. I've tried to find information on higher courts ruling that domestic relations courts have exceeded their authority on custody and support issues, but have not been able to find any cases where this has happened. If you know of any please correct me on that, as I don't claim to be the worlds best researcher. There was one case in Ohio that was faught for 7 years regarding adjustments to the support amounts:

"The one sentence, unanimous decision of the Ohio Supreme Court. In a shared
situation in Ohio, there is only one parent with a child support obligation that is presumptively
subjected to a child support order. The Court did not choose to say how a trial court is to
determine which parent that is."

00-1406 and 00-1730. Hubin v. Hubin.

[right2parent]

. . there is only one parent with a child support obligation that is presumptively subjected to a child support order.

This is true, and it is presumably related to an obligation established under the federal/state child support program for a dependent child. If there is no findings on the record of dependency, there can be no "absent parent" under that program, and the court would have no jurisdiction of such a cause. The reason you can find no published appellate opinions is because jurisdiction was properly desided at the district court level, or nobody has brought such a motion and appealed an adverse desision. I wouldn't say it's a matter of practice, without seeing such a case that was pressed on that particular issue, as we are now attempting to do here in Minnesota. I have seen a case remanded back to the district court for findings of dependency. I'll find you the case if you're interested.