Saturday, April 21, 2007

Another Social Security meets child support case

Father and Mother agree that if Father gets 18 months of Social Security benefits then that will be applied to his child support arrears, but father gets 22 months of past benefits and trial court agrees with Mother that the extra months are not to be applied to Father's arrears. See Scott Butterfield v. Jane (Butterfield) Constantine. (PDF format).

I do not understand Mother's position here as it seems a very poor one. Reducing Father's arrears seems only fair when Father does not dispute applying the Social Security surplus (which would be foolish for him not to agree to this) to his arrears. Then, too, I cannot see drafting the kind of agreement these people signed off on. Applying all the Social Security lump sum payment to the arrears would be a better agreement in my opinion.

No comments: