Opinion ID: 2535774
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Federal Child Support Enforcement Act

Text: ¶ 15. DHS points out that Congress enacted the Federal Child Support Enforcement Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 659, to facilitate collection of child support from parents who receive Social Security Benefits. That act, however, reads in relevant part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 407 of [the Social Security Act]) ... moneys (the entitlement to which is based upon remuneration for employment ) due from, or payable by, the United States or the District of Columbia (including any agency, subdivision, or instrumentality thereof) to any individual ... shall be subject, in like manner and to the same extent as if the United States or the District of Columbia were a private person, ... to any other legal process brought, by a State agency administering a program ... to enforce the legal obligation of the individual to provide child support or alimony. 42 U.S.C. § 659(a) (2006)(emphasis added). This provision allows a state or litigant to attach (for alimony or child support) Social Security payments calculated and paid based on amounts withheld from wages and paid into the Social Security system. However, as explained by the Supreme Court of Nevada in addressing a similar issue in that state: SSI is intended to supplement a recipient's income, not substitute lost income because of a disability. The recipient is not required to pay into the social security system in order to qualify for SSI benefits. Thus, SSI provides a person with a minimum income and is designed to help poor, needy people. Metz v. Metz, 120 Nev. 786, 790, 101 P.3d 779 (Nev.2004). Because the entitlement to SSI benefits is not based on remuneration for employment, Section 659(a) is inapplicable to them and, therefore, not applicable in the present case. ¶ 16. Section 407 is clear: SSI payments are not subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law. 42 U.S.C. § 407 (2006).
¶ 17. In Mississippi, the parent of a child born out of wedlock is held to the same financial responsibilities for supporting the child as parents who are married. Miss.Code Ann. § 93-9-7 (Rev.2004). The Legislature passed guidelines to assist chancery courts in determining the amount of child support to award in an individual case. See Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101 (Rev.2009). The guidelines' suggested percentages are based on the noncustodial parent's adjusted gross income and the number of children to be supported. Id. The statute's definition of gross income includes disability ... benefits and any other payments made by ... federal or state government. Id. ¶ 18. Thus, because SSI payments are payments made by ... federal ... government, Section 93-9-7 includes SSI payments in the amount available for child support. The question thus is whether Section 93-9-7 or federal law prevails. This issue is one of first impression for this Court. However, the Mississippi Court of Appeals has twice addressed a similar issue. In Lee v. Lee, 859 So.2d 408 (Miss.Ct.App.2003), the court held that a chancellor did not abuse his discretion when ordering child-support payments from a man whose only source of income was SSI benefits. The Court of Appeals pointed out that the chancellor did not believe [the man] was as destitute as he claimed or that [he] was as incapacitated as he claimed.... The chancellor determined that [he] was capable of finding a way to raise money in order to support [his daughter], even if it was not a great sum. Id. at 410. The Court of Appeals found some comfort in the chancellor's finding that the father could, if nothing else, [pick] up Coke cans and [turn] them in for a refund. Thus, while we would have preferred more developed evidence as to income-earning capacity, Lee is distinguishable from the case before us today, as it was grounded in the chancellor's belief that the father could earn income separate from his SSI benefits. ¶ 19. Three years following Lee, the Court of Appeals decided Bailey v. Fischer, 946 So.2d 404 (Miss.Ct.App.2006), in which it held thatwhere SSI recipients agree to pay child support out of their SSI paymentscourts may enforce such agreements. Id. at 410. In Bailey, an agreed judgment was entered into the court record, in which the father agreed to use his SSI benefits to pay back child support. Id. at 409. When the father refused to fulfill his obligations under that agreement, the chancellor enforced the agreement by ordering the father to deposit his SSI payments into the registry of the court. Id. at 410. The Court of Appeals held the chancellor did not commit error in doing so. Id. ¶ 20. There was no finding in the record before us that Barnes could do any work that would produce income, as the trial court found in Lee. Furthermore, Lee had received approximately $7,000 in back pay prior to the trial, and he gave only $100 of that to the support of his daughter. There is no evidence in the record that Barnes ever received any income other than his SSI benefits. ¶ 21. DHS argues that Barnes agreed to pay child support using his SSI payments, as did the father in Bailey. The alleged agreement took place during the hearing when Barnes testified that his sister had provided him approximately $100 of his SSI payment each month for his personal use. [8] When asked what he did with this money, Barnes did not respond. When asked, Wouldn't you say that's $100 you could put on your child support? he responded, Yeah, I can say that. We hold that Barnes's statement did not constitute an agreement, and thus we have no need to further address the Court of Appeals' decision in Bailey. We again note that Barnes has been declared incompetent to handle his own financial affairs.
¶ 22. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that federal law is the supreme Law of the Land. Specifically, it provides: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. ¶ 23. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the power of the Supremacy Clause, even in family law matters traditionally left to the States. In Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 625, 107 S.Ct. 2029, 95 L.Ed.2d 599 (1987), the Court considered the question of whether a state court could hold a disabled veteran in contempt for failing to pay child support, where the veteran's only means of satisfying this obligation was compensation he received for his service-related injuries. Id. at 621-22, 107 S.Ct. 2029. The Court stated: The whole subject of domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States. On the rare occasion when state family law has come into conflict with a federal statute, this Court has limited review under the Supremacy Clause to a determination whether Congress has positively required by direct enactment that state law be pre-empted. Before a state law governing domestic relations will be overridden, it must do major damage to clear and substantial federal interests. Id. at 624, 107 S.Ct. 2029 (citations omitted). ¶ 24. The veteran in Rose based his arguments on 38 U.S.C. Section 3101(a), which provides that payments of benefits... under any law administered by the Veteran's Administration ... made to, or on account of, a beneficiary ... shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary. Id. at 631, 107 S.Ct. 2029. The Court examined the legislative history behind this provision, and concluded that Veteran's disability benefits ... are intended to provide reasonable and adequate compensation for disabled veterans and their families. Id. at 630, 107 S.Ct. 2029 (citation to legislative history omitted). On this basis, the Court stated enforce[ment] of a valid child support order coincide[s] with Congress' intent to provide veterans' disability compensation for the benefit of both appellant and his dependents. Id. at 632, 107 S.Ct. 2029. ¶ 25. Our analysis must therefore hinge on whether enforcement of a child-support order would impede Congress' purpose in delivering SSI benefits. As already stated, SSI benefits are to assure a minimum level of income for people who are age 65 or over, or who are blind or disabled and who do not have sufficient income and resources to maintain a standard of living at the established Federal minimum income level. 20 C.F.R. § 416.110 (2009). ¶ 26. We agree with the Minnesota Court of Appeals' reasoning when it considered the application of Rose to SSI benefits. The court noted that veteran's benefits are more similar to subchapter II benefits [based on remuneration for employment] than SSI benefits. Both subchapter II benefits and veteran's benefits are received for time on the job. SSI benefits, by contrast, are awarded solely on the basis of need. Becker County Human Servs. v. Peppel, 493 N.W.2d 573, 575 (Minn.Ct.App.1992). The court also noted that veterans' benefits are intended to compensate the veteran and his family, while SSI benefits are awarded to protect only the recipient. Id. ¶ 27. Thus, we must conclude that, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts Mississippi Code Section 43-19-101, and SSI benefits are not subject to attachment, garnishment or other legal process to satisfy a child-support order. That being said, the federal statutes do not specifically prohibit a chancellor from using SSI benefits to calculate child support. Therefore, we affirm the chancellor as to the award of child support. However, we also wish to make it clear that chancellors are not required to consider SSI benefits in determining whether and in what amount to award child support. Stated another way, we do not hold that chancellors may neveror must alwaysconsider SSI benefits to calculate child support. Rather, we hold that chancellors must utilize discretion based on the facts of a particular case.