1 The reco rd illustra te s t ha t Tr ead way b ega n rec eiving d isab ility paym ents from the S ocia l Sec urity Adm ini strat ion several ye ars a ft er di vor cin g th e mother of S. J. T. The Admi ni st ra t i on al so se ntS. J. T. payments due t o her fa ther ’s di sabil ity. The payments she r eceiv ed tot aled $ 21,599. 

## NO. 07-03-0523-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL C SEPTEMBER 28, 2005

______________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF S.J.T. , A MINOR CHILD

_________________________________ FROM THE 316 TH 

## DISTRIC T COURT O F HUTCHINS ON COUNTY; NO. 1545; HON. DAVID L. GLEASON, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J. and REAVIS an d HANCOCK, JJ. The matter

before us arise s from an attempt torecover unpaid child support from Keith E. Treadway

(Treadway ). The tri al court enter ed an order enti tled “Final Order on Motio n to Withdraw Administr ative Writ of Withholding and Reducing Arrears to Jud gment, ” from which Treadway appealed. Through the order, the trial court found the su p port
arreara ge to be $83,500 and dir ected Treadway

to pay all support to the registr y of the court. The sole issu e presented on appeal concerns whether the trial court erred i n failing to credit ag ainst thearre arage the Soci al Security disabilit y paymentsreceived by Treadway’sdaugh ter, S .J.T. 1 

## We affirm the order of the trial court.2 Through subsecti on (f) of §157. 262, t he legislatu re decl ared t hat t he ”money j udgment for ar rearages

rendered bythe co ur t m ay b e s ub jec t to a co un ter cla im or o ffs et a s p ro vid ed by this subcha pter.” T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . §15 7.2 62(f ) (Ve rnon 200 2) (e m pha sis a dde d). Ye t, the su bch apte r refe rred to, i. e. Subchapter F of Chapter

157 of t he Family

Code, makes no provi sion f or offsets or count ercl aims. And, to t he extent that §157.008( d) of t he Family Code enti tl es an obl igor to prosec ute a counterclai m or aver an off set, that opp ortun ityis li mited t o sit uati ons wherei n chil d support is pa id when the obl igee v olunt ari ly rel inqui shed possession or cont rol over t he chil d to t he obl igor or when the o bligor lac ke d the ability to m ak e pa ym ent, Id. §157.008( d). Treadway do es not contend that eit her si tuat ion occu rred here. 

## 2 Unless provid ed by §157.262 of th e Texas Family Code, a trial courtis barred fr om reducing or

modifying t he amount of child supp ort arrear ages “in a contempt

proceeding
or in rend er ing a money judgment.” T EX 

## . F AM 

## . C ODE 

## A NN 

## . §157.262(a) (Vernon 20 02). 2 

## Because of this provision, Social Security disability payments receiv ed by a chi ld of a disabled parent

cannot be used as an offset or credit agai nst child su pport arrear ages due from the parent. Attorney Gen. v . Stevens , 84 S.W.3d 720, 722-24 (Tex. App.– Houston [1 st

## Dist.] 2002, no pet.). Fur the rmore, th e authority cited by Treadway holding to t he cont rary, e.g. , In re Allsup , 926 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. App.–Tex arkana 1996, no w rit) and In
re Rich , 993 S.W .2d 272 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1999, no pet .), did not conside r the legislat i ve mand ate memorialized in §157.262(a) and barring the reduction of the arrearage. Attorney Gen. v . Stevens , 8 4 S

. W. 3 d a t7 2 5

. We cannot ignor e thatdirective, and it is up to the legis lature to chang e it if it car es to. Accordingl y, the order

of the trial court is affirmed.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice