Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

threshold. Often disabled children from families where one or both parents work will not qualify
because the parents' income and resources will offset the child's eligibility for benefits.
See www.4socialsecuritydisability.com/index.html for additional information.
Dinges v. Dinges, 16 Neb. App. 275, 743 N.W.2d 662 (2008)
The anti-assignment section of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (2000),
states:
The right of any person to any future payment under this subchapter shall not be
transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or
payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy,
attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any
bankruptcy or insolvency law.
In Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, 409 U.S. 413, 417, 93 S.Ct.
590, 34 L.Ed.2d 608 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court described § 407(a) as
"imposing] a broad bar against the use of any legal process to reach all social
security benefits." However, in 1975, Congress declared that Social Security
benefits were subject to legal process "to enforce the legal obligation of the
individual to provide child support or alimony." 42 U.S.C. § 659(a) (2000).
Ward v. Ward, 7 Neb. App. 821, 585 N.W.2d 551 (1998)
Holding: Trial court may deduct value of child’s social security benefits adoptive Dad received
for the benefit of the adopted child (on behalf of the child's deceased mother) when calculating
the noncustodial parent’s child support obligation, if it is done correctly. Ruling is limited to its
facts by Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N.W.2d 67 (2007),which dealt with a handicapped
child. (Child in Ward had no special needs requiring an upward deviation in child support)
A representative payee has a responsibility to use Social Security payments he or
she receives for a child only for the use and benefit of the beneficiary in a manner
and for the purposes he or she determines, under the federal guidelines.
For the purposes of determining child support, Social Security payments to a
representative payee for a child are for the use and benefit of the beneficiary if used
for the beneficiary's current maintenance, which includes the cost of food, shelter,
clothing, medical care, and personal comfort items.
A judge may not satisfy his or her duty to act equitably toward all concerned, i.e., the
parties and the children, by blindly following suggested child support guidelines.
(citing Brandt v. Brandt, 227 Neb. 325, 417 N.W.2d 339 (1988))
A court may deviate from the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines whenever the
application of the guidelines in an individual case would be unjust or inappropriate.
It is simply not fair or reasonable to give the custodial parent the benefit of 100% of
the Social Security payments and thus shift most of the burden of supplying the
unprovided support to the noncustodial parent. The guidelines can still be used as a
reliable guide in setting support if the Social Security benefits are considered as
family income but not attributed to either parent, and if they are applied to the
support computed under the guidelines for that income, with the balance prorated to
the parties on the basis of their real incomes. In this way, the total support is
increased in recognition that the family income is greater than the net monthly
earnings of the parents, and the parent who has the legal obligation to support the
child receives the benefit of the government program intended to pay for the support
of the child.
- 170 -