Sharon Stroup Dorscher v. Robert Dale Stroup (mem. dec,)
03A01-1609-DR-2071
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- Parties divorced in 2001; two children including Adam (disabled, autistic, non-verbal) remained in Mother’s custody; Father had parenting time and child support obligations.
- Adam received SSI until July 2013; when Father began receiving Social Security retirement (SSA) benefits, Adam began receiving Social Security child’s benefits (commonly called SSDI/survivor’s benefits) with Mother acting as Adam’s representative payee.
- Mother petitioned to modify support and for contempt based on Father’s nonpayment; the trial court found an arrearage and ordered income withholding of $95/week.
- At a later hearing the trial court found Mother had received social security benefits based on Father’s disability and held Adam’s SSDI payments could be credited against Father’s child support obligation; it set the arrearage at $8,214 and ordered application of Father’s tax refund to arrears.
- Mother moved to correct error, arguing (1) Mother did not personally receive the benefits (she was representative payee for Adam), (2) the benefits were child SSDI based on Adam’s disability and Father’s retirement status (not Father’s disability), (3) Adam’s SSDI cannot be credited against Father’s child support, and (4) the arrearage calculation was unexplained.
- The Court of Appeals found prima facie error: the trial court misstated who received the benefits and their nature, erred in allowing Adam’s SSDI to offset Father’s support obligation, and failed to explain how it calculated the arrearage; it reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the child’s SSDI/survivor benefits can be credited against Father’s child support obligation | Dorscher: Adam’s SSDI (received with Mother as payee) is separate government benefit and cannot offset Father’s support | Stroup/trial court: Adam’s SSDI payments based on Father’s retirement should satisfy Father’s child support and arrearage | Court: Reversed — child’s SSDI may not be credited to extinguish Father’s child support obligation (prima facie error) |
| Whether Mother personally received the Social Security benefits | Dorscher: Mother did not receive benefits personally; she is representative payee for Adam | Trial court language stated Mother received benefits | Court: Reversed — finding unsupported; benefits were paid to Adam with Mother as payee |
| Characterization of the benefits (type and basis) | Dorscher: Benefits are Adam’s SSDI (child’s benefit based on Father’s retirement), not SSA to Mother nor Father’s disability payments | Trial court characterized them as SSA based on Father’s disability and as paid to Mother | Court: Reversed — trial court mischaracterized type and basis of benefits; benefits were child SSDI tied to Father’s retirement age, not Father’s disability or Mother’s direct SSA receipts |
| Adequacy of arrearage calculation and credits | Dorscher: Trial court did not explain how it computed $8,214 arrearage; records suggest a larger arrearage | Trial court: Found $8,214 arrearage and credited $2,600 paid since last order; ordered ongoing payments | Court: Reversed and remanded for recalculation because record does not show how amount was derived |
Key Cases Cited
- Stultz v. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d 125 (Ind. 1995) (social security benefits paid to children are not generally available to offset a parent’s child support obligation)
- Head v. State, 632 N.E.2d 749 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (Title II social security payments to children are not child support and are not subject to assignment to offset AFDC)
- Brummett v. Brummett, 472 N.E.2d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (social security survivor benefits to a child do not warrant reducing a parent’s child support obligation)
- Kyle v. Kyle, 582 N.E.2d 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (SSI benefits for a disabled child supplement other income and do not reduce noncustodial parent’s child support obligation)