To those who owe Child Support

What is the name of your state?Indiana (but it might not matter)

I was doing a little research and discovered something that really surprised me.
Brown v. Brown, 823 N.E.2d 1224

This case is about a man who owed child support and became disabled. His CS order was modified while he awaited hearing from the SS administration but NOT vacated just reduced by around half. When his SSD did come through he was just over 7k behind in support. SS sent the ex a check for 10K for back pay for the child. The father fought to have this applied to his arrears (which would have paid them off). The courts refused.

Appellant's Br. at 10-11; see also Stultz, 659 N.E.2d at 129 n.6 ("We can envisage a social security disability recipient parent making a stronger case for a credit than a social security retirement recipient but decline to give that issue extensive treatment in this case involving only retirement benefits. Suffice it to say here that disability may affect the parent's and child's standard of living in dramatically different ways than retirement, giving rise to a stronger claim for a credit."). Nevertheless, these considerations do not change the fact that the child, not the parent, is entitled to the disability benefits that the child receives from the government, and that "parents have a legal obligation to support their dependent children." C.M.L. ex rel. Brabant v. Republic Servs., Inc., 800 N.E.2d 200, 206 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied (2004).


I think this is absurd. This man while awaiting SSD benefits was even ordered to jail for failure to pay and was only allowed a suspended sentence due to the fact he was due to have surgery. What this say is that because the government basically gives the money to the child it is the child's regardless of child support. It doesn't matter that the parent worked in order to make those payments even possible.

(QUOTE)When his SSD did come through he was just over 7k behind in support. SS sent the ex a check for 10K for back pay for the child. The father fought to have this applied to his arrears (which would have paid them off)(QUOTE)

Tigger? You lost me here.

It appears what happened is the Father had applied for SSDI .

When SSDI was approved ( some months , or years later ) , SSA paid out back pay from the time the Father was eligible to receive SSDI .

The Children were also entitled benefits during the same time .

The Court already reduced the Child support obligations amount due to the disability ( I'm not sure when ) .

The father wanted the amount the children received ( from back amounts ) , applied to CS arrears he owed .

The court refused to apply it .

Which is exactly what SHOULD have happened. The father cannot utilize the government to pay his obligations.

Liken it to an insurance settlement in which the children share as beneficiaries. Their monies cannot be used to offset any arrearages owed by the father.

The court was correct in it's decisiion.

BelizeBreeze said:

Which is exactly what SHOULD have happened. The father cannot utilize the government to pay his obligations.

Liken it to an insurance settlement in which the children share as beneficiaries. Their monies cannot be used to offset any arrearages owed by the father.

The court was correct in it's decisiion.

Click to expand...

Although it wouldn't do any good to argue since it seem that this is pretty common, at least here in Indiana I will say that I disagree. SSDI payments to children are based on the fact that the other parent worked up until the time of the disability. So if the other parent had not worked enough to get SSDI OR the other parent simply got SSI the child would not have gotten anything at all. In that particular case the CP of the child gets something like 400$ or something like that a month plus 40$ per week from the father. and that 10K that was back pay from SS did not count towards the 7K he accured in arrears when he could not work.

IMO there is a difference in being under employed or unemployed due to choice or even lay off, however modifications can be sought. In this case the parent could not work for a period of time. He did seek a modification, which he got, however still could not pay. Then being the CP they recieved the child's benefits, that equaled to OVER what he owed in arrears but it was not applied.

I however, suspect, although it didn't say, that basically it boiled down to the CP refused to do it and push came to shove the state said she didn't have to.

Just remember tig. The monies are owed the children.
Child support is owed the Mother for the care of the children.

In this country, you cannot force one party to pay the debts of another. And that is what happened in this case, plain and simple.

BelizeBreeze said:

Just remember tig. The monies are owed the children.
Child support is owed the Mother for the care of the children.

In this country, you cannot force one party to pay the debts of another. And that is what happened in this case, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

YES and NO... SS will tell you that SSD is for the CURRENT CARE of the child!

tigger22472 said:

YES and NO... SS will tell you that SSD is for the CURRENT CARE of the child!

Click to expand...

And you know better than most it doesn't matter what SSD says. What matters is how the COURT interprets the rules. And that's how they interpreted them.

BelizeBreeze said:

And you know better than most it doesn't matter what SSD says. What matters is how the COURT interprets the rules. And that's how they interpreted them.

Click to expand...

I know.. I agree that it's how the court interprets them. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with them! lol


Another issue though with that is that there are judges who do not know anything about SS. My husband had a judge argue with him and tell him that he would not be getting any extra money if his daughter did not exist. Husband was trying to explain that yes he adopted my children, however they were receiving benefits before that because SS allows step-children to draw benefits, however the judge would hear none of it.

Again, I think this boiled down to this CP was a b**ch. She brought him in on contempt charges while he was awaiting approval. And like I said I also suspect (and I've dealt with CS issues in Indiana) that the CP COULD have had it applied to the arrears but chose not to.