Schiele v. Schiele, 865 N.W.2d 433

Brenda and Bradley Schiele divorced in 2012; divorce decree awarded Brenda primary residential responsibility and joint decision-making for two children.
At divorce, youngest child C.B.S. was in state custody at a hospital; later placed voluntarily at the Life Skills and Transition Center (the Center) where he lives and receives nearly all expenses covered by Medicaid and SSI.
In October 2013 Brenda moved to establish child support for C.B.S.; district court orally found Bradley owed support effective October 2013 and later entered a second amended judgment.
Bradley moved to amend the decree to remove primary residential responsibility (arguing neither parent actually provides a home while child is at the Center); motion was denied as untimely and for lack of supporting facts.
Bradley also sought an offset of his child support obligation for benefits (Medicaid/SSI) paid on behalf of C.B.S.; the court declined, finding no evidence benefits fit the administrative rule definition of "children’s benefits."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brenda)	Defendant's Argument (Bradley)	Held
Whether obligor must pay child support when child resides in residential placement outside both parents' homes	A child-support determination is appropriate because child and both parents do not reside together; Brenda was awarded primary residential responsibility and acts as primary caregiver despite placement	No child support should be ordered because neither parent provides a home or is the primary caregiver while the child is at the Center; obligation should begin only if/when child resides with a parent	Court affirmed: divorce judgment awarding Brenda primary residential responsibility controls; child support may be ordered when child and both parents do not reside together
Whether benefits (Medicaid/SSI) paid on behalf of the child must offset obligor's support obligation under the child support guidelines	Offset not warranted because record lacks evidence that the benefits qualify as "children’s benefits" derivative of a parent's benefits or non-means-tested payments	Benefits paid on behalf of child should be credited against support because they are government payments made for the child's needs	Court affirmed: no offset because defendant failed to prove benefits meet the administrative definition of "children’s benefits," and record lacks foundation identifying the source or character of benefits

Berge v. Berge, 710 N.W.2d 417 (N.D. 2006) (standards of review for child support determinations)
Crandall v. Crandall, 799 N.W.2d 388 (N.D. 2011) (administrative child support guidelines construed like statutes)
Boumont v. Boumont, 691 N.W.2d 278 (N.D. 2005) (divorce-judgment language controls allocation of custodial responsibility for support under guidelines)
Norberg v. Norberg, 845 N.W.2d 348 (N.D. 2014) (credit for children’s benefits belongs to parent whose earnings produced benefits; obligor’s duty not relieved by benefits not attributable to him)
Bergman v. Bergman, 486 N.W.2d 243 (N.D. 1992) (pre-guideline authority recognizing deviation from guidelines for factors not considered by guidelines)