Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Social security payments satisfy court ordered child support on a month by month
basis. They may not be carried over to satisfy court ordered support amounts in
future months.
With regard to social security benefits, a non-custodial parent may be entitled to an
equitable credit against child support arrearages, with certain qualifications, but
there is no entitlement to credit against future child support payments. Future
obligations are not yet accrued, and because they are subject to modification,
they are not ascertainable.
Excess Social Security benefits should be applied to child support arrearage which
has accrued since the date of the occurrence which entitled the parent to receive
such benefits.
The credit allowed for Social Security benefit payments is equitable in nature.
The date of the occurrence which entitles a person to Social Security benefits should
be used for purposes of establishing when the benefits may be utilized as a
substitute for income. Equitable considerations lead us to allow excess Social
Security dependency benefits to be credited against child support arrearage which
has accrued from the date of the occurrence which entitled the parent to such
benefits, unless the allowance of such credit, in the particular case, would be
inequitable.
Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N.W.2d 67 (2007) (Gress II)
Facts: This case is a real treasure trove of case law relating to many aspects of what we do.
Child of parties has Down’s syndrome and receives social security benefits on account of that
condition. NCP wanted his child support reduced because child was receiving social security
benefits. Supreme Court said No!
The federal government provides Social Security to special needs children with the
intent that it will supplement other income, not substitute for it.
special-needs children require additional financial support to overcome
developmental, cognitive, or physiological problems. With this in mind, the federal
government provides Social Security to such children with the intent that it will
“supplement other income, not substitute for it.” In contrast, the money allocated to
the youngest child under the NCSG is meant to provide for the basic needs all
children have. To construe one source of money as satisfying both needs would
leave either his basic or his special needs unfulfilled.
[I]t not appropriate to offset child support costs where, as here, the Social Security
benefits are intended to mitigate the additional costs that accompany disabilities.
Griess v. Griess; 9 Neb. App. 105, 608 N.W.2d 217 (2000)
Facts: A rather bizarre case. Parties’ child support was erroneously modified, and obligated
parent was then court ordered to pay much more child support than he should have been
ordered to pay under the guidelines. No one caught the error until he overpaid his support by
more than $18,000. He then filed an action seeking credit against his future child support
obligation. The court struggled with this, given that his own attorney overlooked the glaring
error, but ultimately granted an equitable credit against his future child support obligation. It was
clear that the Court of Appeals gave considerable weight in it’s decision to the fact that the
custodial parent had testified that she did not need the child support money and “never” relied
on it in providing support for her children.
Whether overpayments of child support should be credited against future child
support is a question of law.
- 70 -