Wong v. Hawk, 2012 ME 125

Hawk and Wong divorced in 2002; Wong had primary custody of their daughter.
Initial child support was $165.33/week, later increased to $187.95/week in 2008 based on imputed incomes and Hawk’s health insurance provision.
In July 2011, DHHS moved to modify Hawk’s support due to a claimed income decline to $38,344.
Magistrate found Hawk’s total gross income as $46,066.50 and Wong’s as $21,600; Hawk’s daughter received $1,001/month in Social Security dependent benefits tied to Hawk’s Social Security retirement account.
The magistrate found Hawk retired voluntarily to provide the dependent benefit; the court later denied credit for retirement-based dependent benefits under 2107 and did not consider deviation under 2007.
DHHS appealed, arguing (A) retirement-based dependent benefits are not covered by 19-A M.R.S. § 2107 and (B) the magistrate did not abuse discretion in not deviating from guidelines; the District Court reversed in part and awarded a credit under 2107 or deviation, which the appellate court vacated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2107 allows a credit for retirement benefits.	DHHS contends retirement benefits are not covered by § 2107.	Hawk's daughter’s benefits resulted from the obligor’s disability?	§ 2107 does not apply to retirement benefits; district court erred.
Whether the court abused its discretion by not deviating from the guidelines under § 2007.	DHHS argues deviation was warranted; magistrate abused discretion.	Magistrate reasonably declined deviation based on statutory criteria and lack of proposed findings.	No abuse of discretion; magistrate’s decision not to deviate was supported.

Dishon v. Me. State Ret. Sys., 569 A.2d 1216 (Me. 1990) (retirement benefits differ from disability benefits; not necessarily related to earning capacity)
Carroll v. Celsius Contractors, 637 A.2d 111 (Me. 1994) (disability benefits tied to injury; affects earning capacity)
Wiedmaier v. Comm’r, 774 F.2d 109 (6th Cir. 1985) (distinguishes disability from retirement benefits)
Blue Yonder, LLC v. State Tax Assessor, 2011 ME 49, 17 A.3d 667 (Me. 2011) (avoid redundancy; retirement vs disability)
Pratt v. Sidney, 2009 ME 28, 967 A.2d 685 (Me. 2009) (de novo review of legal conclusions after magistrate order)
Sylvester v. Vitagliano, 2002 ME 141, 804 A.2d 391 (Me. 2002) (appellate review of magistrate decisions in deviation context)
Monty v. Department of Health & Human Servs., 2000 ME 96, 750 A.2d 1276 (Me. 2000) (abuse of discretion standard for deviation from guidelines)
Ezell v. Lawless, 2008 ME 189, 955 A.2d 202 (Me. 2008) (credibility and factual findings by magistrate upheld on review)