Opinion ID: 885629
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Use of Joseph's Social Security Benefits

Text: ¶31 We have also not previously addressed the specific question of how a child's federal Social Security benefits under 42 U.S.C. 402(d)(1994), may be used. However, we have held that such benefits may be credited against a noncustodial parent's child support obligation. In re Marriage of Cowan (1996), 279 Mont. 491, 499-502 , 928 P.2d 214, 21921. Inherent in this rule is the assumption that such benefits be used to support a child's present needs. We have also held that the manner in which child support is to be used is file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-478%20Opinion.htm (11 of 13)3/23/2007 4:07:59 PM file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-478%20Opinion.htm left to the discretion of the custodial parent. Willoughby v. Loomis (1994), 264 Mont. 44, 51, 869 P.2d 271, 275; In re Marriage of Hopper, 1999 MT 310, ¶ 47, 297 Mont. 225, ¶ 47, 991 P.2d 960, ¶ 47. Further, under § 40-6-212, MCA, an allowance may be made to the parent of a child out of the child's property for the past or future support and education of the child for the child's benefit. ¶32 While it is true that federal Social Security benefits are intended to provide education for the recipient, Elam v. Hanson (N.D. Ohio 1974), 384 F.Supp. 549, this limited purpose only applies to recipients over age 18. For minor age recipients, however, the general purpose of the federal benefits is to provide at least some measure of income and security to those who have lost a wage-earner on whom they depended. Ziskin v. Weinberger (S. D. Ohio 1973), 379 F.Supp. 124, 126. ¶33 In this case, the record demonstrates that in 1993, the parties initially agreed to a $50 per month child support payment. Later, during Robert's 1996 petition for modification, the parties did not change this amount, but they recognized that their initial agreement was not within this state's child support guidelines, as required by § 40-4-204 and § 40-5-209, MCA. Cheryl currently receives $87.50 per month through a garnishment of Robert's military benefits. In light of the above precedent, we hold the District Court's finding that Cheryl had discretion to use these funds was not clearly erroneous because Joseph's Social Security benefits and the military garnishment provide reasonable monthly support for Joseph's present needs. ¶34 While we agree that Robert expressed serious concerns regarding Joseph's welfare, including learning a foreign language at a young age, receiving a religious education, preparing for advanced study in the sciences, and saving for a college education, we cannot conclude here that the District Court was clearly erroneous in its order. The court's order provided for Joseph's stability by allowing him to go to school in Anaconda where Cheryl lives and it provided reasonable support for his present needs. Further, the court made clear that the parties could and should continue to work together to address Joseph's best interest in the future, which could include finding alternative means for providing for the concerns expressed during the proceedings.