LaMothe v. LeBlanc, 70 A.3d 977

Father and mother are the parents of a minor child born January 2000.
In 2006, family court allocated primary physical rights to mother and created a shared custody schedule with father.
A 2006 order set child support at $175/month and split unreimbursed health expenses.
In November 2008, a modified order suspended child support due to father’s inability to work; timing of resume tied to father's return to work.
In December 2010, father filed a pro se motion to modify child support, alleging derivative SSDI benefits to the child and direct payments to mother, and requesting imputation of mother’s income and a credit for the lump-sum derivative payment.
In March 2011, the magistrate denied modification, applying Cantin and treating the derivative benefits as income to the father while denying a credit for the lump-sum and not imputing income to mother; the family division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper Cantin framework application	Cantin requires credit and income treatment of derivative benefits.	Cantin framework misapplied; derivative benefits cannot be split or credited against the other parent.	Cantin framework applied; need full Cantin two-step analysis on remand.
Credit for lump-sum derivative benefit	Lump-sum derivative payment should be credited toward father's share of dental expenses.	Derivative lump-sum does not alter cost-sharing of uninsured expenses.	Remand to apply lump-sum credit toward father's share of the dental bill.
Imputation of mother's income	Mother is voluntarily underemployed; income should be imputed.	No clear evidence of voluntary underemployment; imputation unwarranted.	Court should not impute income to mother; supported by record.
Deviations versus guidelines in a zero-support order	Magistrate’s deviation analysis should be reviewed as grounds for modification.	There was a preexisting deviation decision; no timely appeal of deviation; review improper.	Majority seeks guideline-focused review; dissent notes deviation occurred and should be preserved; remand for Cantin/Cantin-based calculation.

Cantin v. Young, 171 Vt. 659 (2000) (derivative SSDI benefits treated as income to obligor and as credit toward obligation)
Louko v. McDonald, 2011 VT 33 (2011) (credit against arrearages for derivative benefits; framework for Cantin-like analysis)
Davis v. Davis, 141 Vt. 398 (1982) (derivative benefits paid to child treated as credit toward obligor's obligation)
Tetreault v. Coon, 167 Vt. 396 (1998) (standard deferential review of imputation of income under § 653(5)(A)(iii))