Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 7-1121 (2026)
Order for support — Continuance beyond age of 18 — Other payments by father.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Order for support — Continuance beyond age of 18 — Other payments by father.
(1) In a proceeding in which the court has made an order of filiation, the court may direct a father possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means to pay monthly or at other fixed periods a fair and reasonable sum for the support and education of the child until the child is eighteen (18) years of age. If the child continues his high school education subsequent to reaching the age of eighteen (18) years, the court may, in its discretion, order the continuation of support payments until the child discontinues his high school education or reaches the age of nineteen (19) years, whichever is sooner.
(2) The order of filiation may direct the father to pay or reimburse amounts paid for the support of the child prior to the date of the order of filiation and may also direct him to pay or reimburse amounts paid for: (a) the funeral expenses if the child has died; (b) the necessary expenses incurred by or for the mother in connection with her confinement and recovery; and (c) such expenses in connection with the pregnancy of the mother as the court may deem proper.
(3) If the father is a minor at the time the order is entered, the order shall continue in effect as a valid order after the father reaches majority, and cannot be disaffirmed by the minor himself or personal representatives.
(4) Upon the receipt of a genetic test result with a probability of paternity of at least ninety-eight percent (98%) the court shall, upon motion by a party, order temporary support for the child pending a final order of paternity and support. The support shall be in accordance with the Idaho child support guidelines.
(5) All child support orders shall notify the obligor that the order will be enforced by income withholding pursuant to chapter 12, title 32, Idaho Code. Failure to include this provision does not affect the validity of the support order. The court shall require that the social security numbers of both the obligor and obligee be included in the order or decree.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1978–1993 · leading case: Isaacson v. Obendorf, 581 P.2d 350 (Idaho 1978).
Isaacson v. Obendorf, 581 P.2d 350 (Idaho 1978). “The modern view is that no such limit should be imposed and that the support of the child born out of wedlock should be determined in the same way as the support of the legitimate child, that is, with reference to the needs of the child and the resources of the father.”
Walborn v. Walborn, 817 P.2d 160 (Idaho 1991). “” The court based its authority to extend child support to age twenty-one upon the provisions of I.C. § 7-1121. Finally, the magistrate ruled “that so long as each party owes the other pursuant to the foregoing paragraphs the monthly payment shall be set off against each other.”
Livengood v. Idaho ex rel. Dep't of Health & Welfare, Bureau of Child Support Enf't (In re Livengood), 157 B.R. 678 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1993). “The State paid the expenses under the provisions of Idaho Code § 7-1121 which states in pertinent part: [[Image here]] The order of filiation may direct the father to pay or reimburse amounts paid for the support of the child prior to the date of the order of filiation and may…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.