Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Addressing a child support dispute for the second time on appeal, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has rejected a father’s argument that his disabled daughter’s disability benefits should be used to offset his child support obligation.
The case — Mark A. Wilson v. Teresa C. Wilson, 23A-DC-1384 — first came before the Court of Appeals earlier this year, when the appellate court remanded the child support question.
At issue is the child support obligation imposed on Mark Wilson, the ex-husband of Teresa Wilson and the father of Emily, their adult daughter who is disabled.
During the couple’s divorce proceedings, Teresa had submitted a proposed child support worksheet recommending that Mark pay $262 per week in child support. The Hendricks Superior Court adopted that worksheet in its dissolution decree, but the Court of Appeals remanded “for the trial court to determine and make findings as to whether E.’s overall financial needs are satisfied in whole or in part by the Social Security benefit she receives and for entry of Father’s support obligation which, if appropriate, includes an adjustment for the income E. receives in Social Security benefits.”
On remand, the trial court noted that if a 16-year-old child earns money from working a job, that money would not be included in calculating support because the child would still not be capable of supporting themselves.
Likewise as to Emily, who receives $840 a month in Social Security Disability Insurance, the court found that she will never arrive at the juncture of being able to take care of herself without the support of her parents. Thus, the trial court reimposed the $262 monthly child support payment.
Mark challenged that order on appeal for the second time, arguing his child support obligation should have been offset by Emily’s Social Security benefits. But this time, the Court of Appeals affirmed.
“Father’s position that the trial court should have offset his support obligation by the full amount of Emily’s SSD benefits is not supported by the Guidelines, analogous caselaw, or common sense,” Chief Judge Robert Altice wrote. “And his claim that Emily’s financial needs are fully covered by her SSD benefits is pure folly and ignores the reality that, at the time of the final hearing, Mother and Emily remained financially unable to move out of Mother’s parents’ home.”
The appellate court looked to Lea v. Lea, 691 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. 1998), where the Supreme Court rejected a noncustodial father’s argument that his support obligation should be reduced based on his incapacitated daughter’s weekly income from a part-time job.
Following Lea, commentary was added to the Child Support Guidelines saying an incapacitated adult child’s earned income may — but not must — be considered.
“This commentary reflects the broad discretion afforded trial courts in these matters,” Altice wrote. “That is, a trial court may consider the earned income of an incapacitated adult child when apportioning support, but such is not required. We believe this same flexibility should be afforded a trial court when considering the effect, if any, that an incapacitated adult child’s SSD benefits should have in the calculation of a particular support obligation.”
Finally, in a footnote, Altice added, “We note that Father does not make the more tenable claim that the trial court should have determined the support obligation by apportioning support based on the relative amounts earned by Father, Mother, and Emily — the methodology used by the trial court in Lea. By our own calculations, such would have resulted in a reduction of his support obligation of about $40 per week, much lower than the full credit he sought.
“Regardless,” Altice wrote, “Father did not present the trial court with a proposed child support worksheet with such calculations.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.