| gin this сase, the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), appeals the family court’s calculation of child support obligations. For the reasons set forth herein, we amend the judgment of thе family court and affirm as amended.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 14, 2013, DCFS, in the interest of Mattheus Jones, minor child of Monica Jones, filed a рetition to establish paternity and support alleging that Kristopher Peters was the biological father and hаd failed or refused to pay child support. Although personally served, Kristopher did not file an answer to the petition. DCFS moved for a preliminary default that was granted by the family court on April 19, 2013. On numerous occasions, the family court ordered Kristopher to submit to a paternity test; however, Kristopher never appeared for the test.
Due to Kristopher’s unwillingness to submit to a paternity test, DCFS filed a motion to make the presumption of Kristopher’s paternity absolute. Kristopher failed to appear for the hearing on the motion. The family court signed a judgment on February 21, 2014, declaring Kristopher to be the biological father of Mattheus and ordering Kristopher to pay child support of $200.00 per month and to pay $98.00 for the cost .of the paternity test.
In the family court’s child support worksheet, $508.00 was deducted from Monica’s total income for “extraordinary adjustments.” The deductiоn corresponds to Social Security income Mattheus received as dependent pay in conjunсtion with Monica’s own Social Security benefits.
DCFS filed a motion' for new trial on February 27, 2014, arguing that the deduction of $508.00 frоm the basic child support obligation should have been applied as a credit against Monica’s potential child support obligation. |aThe family court denied the motion for new trial and DCFS appealed thе judgment. •
DCFS’s alleges as it’s sole assignment of error that the family court erred in applying the Social Security Administration benefits received by Mattheus from the earnings of Monica, his mother, as a deduction from the basic support obligation of the parties, rather than applying the benefits as a credit against the potential obligation of Monica in accordance with La. R.S. fcSlSJCD).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review in a child support case is manifest error and, accordingly, an appellate court will not disturb a child support order unless there is an abusе of discretion or manifest error. Verberne v. Verberne,
DISCUSSION
Normally, income of the child that can be used to reduce the basic needs of the child may be considered аs a deduction from the basic child support obligation. La. R.S. 9:315.7(A). However, Paragraph D of La. R.S. 9:315.7 provides an еxception to the general rule. When the child’s income is classified as Social Security benefits, such as in the instant case, the earnings shall be credited as child support to the parent upon whom the Learning is based. The family court’s child support worksheet shows that the income was incorrectly treated as a deduction from the basic child support obligation.
According to the plain language of Paragraph D of La. R.S. 9:315.7, the сredit is not simply to be applied to the amount of the basic child support owed, but “shall be credited ... against the potential obligation of that parent” for whose disability the child is receiving Social Security benefits. Genusa v. Genusa,
When the $508.00 is removed as a credit on line 5e of the child support obligation worksheet, the tоtal support obligation is $885.88. Monica’s percentage share of income is 47.42% and Kristopher’s percеntage share of income is 52.58%.
Therefore, Monica’s recommended potential child support obligation according to her allotted percentage is $420.08 per month ($885.88 x 47.42%), credited by $508.00 per month. Since the credit is larger than the obligation, and since Monica is the domiciliary parent, she will not be obligated to make аny child support payments. See Todtenbier v. Todtenbier,
Based on Kristopher’s allotted percentage of 52.58%, his recommended child support obligation is $465.80 per month ($885.88 x 52.58%). We find Kristopher’s present child support obligation to be manifestly erroneous. The family court
DECREE
The judgment of the family court for the parish of East Baton Rouge is hereby amended to reflect that Kristopher Peters’ monthly child support obligation is the sum of $465.80. All other aspects of the judgment are affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Kristopher Peters.
AMENDED, AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED
Notes
. Louisiаna Revised Statutes 9:315.7(D) states, in pertinent part: "[S]ocial security benefits received by a child due to the eаrnings of a parent shall be credited as child support to the parent upon whose earning record it is based, by crediting the amount against the potential obligation of' that parent.” [Emphasis added.]