Court Opinion

ID: 9897238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:09:05.683497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:40.895352
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                             Oct 31 2023, 9:16 am

                                                                                 CLERK
                                                                             Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                Court of Appeals
                                                                                  and Tax Court

      ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
      Leah Burris                                                Ryan M. Spahr
      Noblesville, Indiana                                       Indianapolis, Indiana

                                                  IN THE
          COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

      Mark A. Wilson,                                            October 31, 2023
      Appellant-Respondent,                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                                 23A-DC-1384
              v.                                                 Appeal from the Hendricks
                                                                 Superior Court
      Teresa C. Wilson,                                          The Honorable Rhett M. Stuard,
      Appellee-Petitioner                                        Judge
                                                                 Trial Court Cause No.
                                                                 32D02-2107-DC-445

                                   Opinion by Chief Judge Altice
                              Judges Weissmann and Kenworthy concur.

      Altice, Chief Judge.

      Case Summary
[1]   This is the second appeal involving the dissolution of the marriage of Mark A.

      Wilson (Father) and Teresa C. Wilson (Mother). In the first, Father appealed

      the trial court’s dissolution decree, challenging both the division of marital

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023                           Page 1 of 14
      property and the calculation of his child support obligation for the parties’ adult

      disabled daughter, Emily. Another panel of this court reversed and remanded

      on both issues.

[2]   On remand, the trial court entered an amended decree, which Father appeals.

      This time he challenges only the trial court’s determination regarding child

      support. He contends that his child support obligation of $226 per week should

      have been offset by Emily’s $840 monthly Social Security Disability Insurance

      (SSD) benefit.

[3]   We affirm.

      Facts & Procedural History
[4]   Mother and Father married in 2001 and had Emily the next year. Emily has

      special needs and, though an adult, functions at about the level of an eight-year-

      old child. Emily will never be able to live on her own. During the marriage,

      Father financially supported the family, and Mother was Emily’s primary

      caretaker, working only part-time.

[5]   In July 2021, Mother petitioned for dissolution of marriage and, at the end of

      that year, moved to Florida with Emily to live with Mother’s parents. At the

      time of the final dissolution hearing in July 2022, Mother and Emily still lived

      with her parents, who did not charge rent. Mother testified that she intends to

      “find a home of our own” but that “right now I don’t make enough to do that.”

      Transcript at 36. Mother explained, “I’m not living at my parents’ house by

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023      Page 2 of 14
      choice[.] I am living there by necessity. We have nowhere else to go.” Id.

      Mother was working about thirty hours a week making $16.25 per hour.

[6]   At the time of the final hearing, Emily was receiving SSD benefits of $840 per

      month, with Mother as Emily’s representative payee. Mother testified that this

      money “does not go very far” and that Emily used it each month for personal

      expenses, such as entertainment, shopping, school fees, and personal care. Id.

      at 13. Emily is also a beneficiary of a special needs trust created by Mother,

      which was funded with about $6,000.

[7]   Mother submitted a proposed child support worksheet with a recommended

      support obligation to be paid by Father of $262 per week. This was calculated

      based on weekly gross income figures of $2,623.08 for Father and $436.58 for

      Mother.

[8]   At the final hearing, Father testified that he believed Emily’s SSD benefits were

      sufficient to meet her needs going forward. Accordingly, he asked the trial

      court not to enter a weekly child support award, and he did not submit a

      proposed child support worksheet.

[9]   On August 4, 2022, the trial court issued a decree of dissolution with findings

      and conclusions. It distributed the marital estate slightly unequally in favor of

      Mother and adopted her proposed child support worksheet. Father appealed,

      challenging both the property division and the child support order. On the issue

      of child support, the only one relevant here, Father argued that the trial court

      erred in failing to consider Emily’s SSD income when calculating support.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023     Page 3 of 14
[10]   Another panel of this court reversed and remanded on both grounds asserted by

       Father. Wilson v. Wilson, 205 N.E.3d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). Regarding

       child support, the court provided the following brief analysis and directions on

       remand:

                 We reverse a trial court’s decision regarding child support if it is
                 clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Saalfrank v. Saalfrank, 899
                 N.E.2d 671, 674 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Young v. Young, 891
                 N.E.2d 1045, 1047 (Ind. 2008)). The Indiana Child Support
                 Guidelines contain statements which appear to relate primarily to
                 Social Security benefits paid based upon the disability of a
                 parent.[ 1] Nevertheless, we note that the commentary to Indiana
                 Child Support Guideline 3G states, “[a]lthough Social Security
                 benefits are not reflected on Line 7 of the child support
                 Worksheet, the benefit should be considered, and its effect and
                 application shall be included in the written order for support of
                 that child.” Here, Mother testified that [Emily] receives a
                 monthly [SSD] benefit of approximately $840. The court ordered
                 that Father pay $262 per week in support, which is the amount
                 recommended in Mother’s proposed child support worksheet.
                 Her proposed worksheet included amounts for the weekly gross
                 incomes of the parties but did not include any adjustments.[ 2]
                 The court heard testimony regarding the amounts spent on behalf
                 of [Emily] for housing, groceries, and school fees, [Emily]’s
                 Medicaid coverage, the amount held in a trust for [Emily], and
                 the extent to which [Emily]’s expenses were covered by her
                 disability income. In light of the record, we remand for the trial

       1
         See Ind. Child Support Guideline 3A(1) (providing a definition of weekly gross income and stating “Social
       Security disability benefits paid for the benefit of the child must be included in the disabled parent’s gross
       income. The disabled parent is entitled to a credit for the amount of Social Security disability benefits paid for
       the benefit of the child.”); Child Support Guideline 3G(5) (addressing Social Security benefits received for a
       child based upon the disability of the custodial or noncustodial parent).
       2
           Father does not raise an issue regarding the parties’ weekly gross incomes.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023                                 Page 4 of 14
               court to determine and make findings as to whether [Emily]’s
               overall financial needs are satisfied in whole or in part by the
               Social Security benefit she receives and for entry of Father’s
               support obligation which, if appropriate, includes an adjustment
               for the income [Emily] receives in Social Security benefits.

       Id. at 242-43 (footnotes in original though numerically different).

[11]   On remand, the trial court issued its amended findings and decree of dissolution

       on May 24, 2023 (the Amended Decree). Relevant here, the Amended Decree

       provided:

               70. Addressing Emily’s disability payments, the Court finds that
               this income is not the result of the disability of a parent but the
               disability of Emily herself.

               71. This is Emily’s money.

               72. Emily will never be able to work and earn money.

               73. She requires regular care.

               74. The money provided by the disability payments accounts for
               this reality and is provided to assist her with the challenges she
               faces.

               75. It is the Court’s considered opinion that this amount should
               play no part in calculating child support for Emily.

               76. If a 16-year-old child earns funds from working a job the
               money earned may indeed contribute to that child or her family’s
               quality of life.

               77. Nonetheless, [courts] do not include this in calculating
               support.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023          Page 5 of 14
        78. That is because generally, that child is not capable of
        supporting herself, even with a job.

        79. The additional income is the child’s money.

        80. The parents of that working child, including the non-
        custodial parent, must still provide full support.

        81. Under Indiana law, upon turning 19 and being able to earn
        her own way in the world, a child is emancipated. The policy
        reasons are that the child, now older, has had an opportunity to
        obtain an education, has matured, is better at decision making,
        and is now able to provide support for herself.

        82. In other words, the child no longer needs the support of the
        parents and can take care of herself.

        83. Emily will never arrive at this juncture.

        84. Thus, her [SSD] income will, for the rest of her life, be
        needed to provide for her care and the daily realities of living.

        85. She needs food, medical care, school tuition, and at times,
        care to be provided by paid caregivers.

        86. Her quality of life depends very much on the disability
        income she receives.

        87. Although funds may at times go into trust for Emily, the
        necessities of life are many and varied and considering her
        challenges, this Court is confident in saying that all of the funds
        paid by the government for Emily, and more, are needed by her
        to survive in this world.

        88. Giving Father credit for these funds against his support
        obligation significantly reduces the funds available to care for
        Emily and effectively transfers most of the monetary burden for
        Emily’s care to Mother and Mother’s parents.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023          Page 6 of 14
               89. Although the funds aid her caregivers in defraying the high
               costs of her care, the funds are hers and hers alone and should
               not be included in any way in the calculation of child support.

               90. Thus, considering the evidence presented by the parties, the
               court orders Father to pay child support to Mother in the amount
               of $262.00 on a weekly basis.

       Appellant’s Appendix at 18-19. Father now appeals the Amended Decree.

       Standard of Review
[12]   Our Supreme Court has long placed a “strong emphasis on trial court discretion

       in determining child support obligations.” Lea v. Lea, 691 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind.

       1998) (quoting Stultz v. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d 125, 128 (Ind. 1995)). Accordingly, a

       trial court’s calculation of child support is presumptively valid, and we will

       reverse only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In re Paternity of K.C.,

       171 N.E.3d 659, 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). A decision is clearly erroneous if it

       is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the

       trial court. Id. On review, we will not reweigh the evidence and will consider

       only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Id. A trial court’s specific

       findings will be found clearly erroneous “only when the record contains no facts

       to support them either directly or by inference.” Ratliff v. Ratliff, 804 N.E.2d

       237, 244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

       Discussion & Decision
[13]   Father argues that Emily’s SSD benefit of $840 per month is “more than

       sufficient to meet her very minimal needs” and that the trial court erred in

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023         Page 7 of 14
       failing to include or consider this income in the calculation of child support.

       Appellant’s Brief at 6. Father contends that Emily’s SSD benefits should have

       been fully credited against his support obligation.

[14]   The Indiana Child Support Guidelines directly address SSD benefits paid to a

       child but only in the context of benefits received as the result of a parent’s

       disability. That is, in defining weekly gross income, Guideline 3(A)(1)

       provides: “[SSD] benefits paid for the benefit of the child must be included in

       the disabled parent’s gross income. The disabled parent is entitled to a credit

       for the amount of [SSD] benefits paid for the benefit of the child.” And

       Guideline 3(G) addresses adjustments to a parent’s support obligation and

       provides the following regarding the effect of Social Security benefits on a

       current support obligation:

               1. Custodial parent: Social Security benefits received for a child
               based upon the disability of the custodial parent are not a credit
               toward the child support obligation of the noncustodial parent.
               The amount of the benefit is included in the custodial parent’s
               income for the purpose of calculating the child support
               obligation, and the benefit is also a credit toward the custodial
               parent’s child support obligation.

               2. Noncustodial parent: Social Security benefits received by a
               custodial parent, as representative payee of the child, based upon the
               earnings or disability of the noncustodial parent shall be considered as
               a credit to satisfy the noncustodial parent’s child support
               obligation as follows:

                        i. Social Security Retirement benefits may, at the court’s
                        discretion, be credited to the noncustodial parent’s current
                        child support obligation. The credit is not automatic. The

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023           Page 8 of 14
                         presence of Social Security Retirement benefits is merely
                         one factor for the court to consider in determining the
                         child support obligation or modification of the obligation.
                         Stultz v. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d 125 (Ind. 1995).

                         ii. Social Security Disability benefits shall be included in
                         the Weekly Gross Income of the noncustodial parent and
                         applied as a credit to the noncustodial parent’s current
                         child support obligation. The credit is automatic.

       Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(a) (emphases supplied). 3

[15]   The Guidelines do not address the issue at hand - SSD benefits received by a

       disabled adult child, like Emily, for her own disability. And it makes little sense

       that the benefits she receives for her own disability must be used to offset

       Father’s support obligation. This income does not represent benefits received

       based on the earnings or disability of Father.

[16]   In a different context, our Supreme Court adopted a general rule that Social

       Security retirement payments to children are not available to offset child

       support to which a child is otherwise entitled. Stultz, 659 N.E.2d at 130. The

       Court explained in part:

                [T]he retired parent pays no additional premiums in order to
                entitle his or her child to benefits – the amount of social security
                contributions paid by the retired parent and his or her employer

       3
         The commentary to Guideline 3(G) similarly addresses SSD benefits only to the extent they are based on a
       parent’s disability. This commentary repeatedly refers to the “disabled parent” and explains that SSD
       benefits paid to a child are recognized as earnings of the disabled parent, noting that “SSD is, by definition, a
       substitution for a person’s income lost due to a recognized disability.”

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023                                 Page 9 of 14
               are the same whether the parent is married or single and whether
               he or she has children or not. Perhaps more significant, the
               retired parent’s own social security retirement benefits are not
               reduced or changed by the benefits his or her children receive. It
               seems to us that what is going on here is that Congress has
               created an entitlement for the minor children of all social security
               participants who retire. But it is the children’s entitlement, not
               the retiree’s, and should not as a general rule diminish the legal
               obligation of retirees to support their children

       Id. The Court also noted “the unfairness of granting a retiree parent credit for

       payments received by a child” and referenced the following excerpt from the

       custodial mother’s brief: “In this case, the husband, although he has regular and

       ongoing income, will pay NO child support. Uncle Sam will pay it for him. The

       children, on the other hand, will have their support cut in half.” Id. at 130 n.9.

       The Stutz holding is now reflected in Guideline 3(G)(5)(a)(2)(i), as set out

       above.

[17]   In a footnote, the Court in Stutz acknowledged that “a social security disability

       recipient parent” might make a stronger case for a credit than a social security

       retirement recipient because “disability may affect the parent’s and child’s

       standard of living in dramatically different ways than retirement.” Stultz, 659

       N.E.2d at 130 n.6. Confronted with such a case several years later, in Brown v.

       Brown, the Court held that “a disabled parent is entitled to a credit against the

       parent’s support obligations for [SSD] benefits paid to a child.” 849 N.E.2d

       610, 612 (Ind. 2006). In so holding, the Court observed that SSD payments to a

       child are essentially “a substitute for the disabled parent’s earnings rather than

       gratuities from the federal government.” Id. at 614. The Court further stated:
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023      Page 10 of 14
               Although we hold that a disabled parent is entitled to have child
               support obligations credited with the [SSD] benefits received by
               the child because of that parent’s disability, we see no reason to
               revisit our holding in Stultz with respect to the discretion of the
               trial court when presented with a request for a credit for Social
               Security retirement benefits. Disability impacts a parent’s
               earning capacity and, therefore, a child’s standard of living, in a
               fundamentally different way than does retirement. The trial
               court is in the best position to assess the impact of retirement in
               any particular case.

       Id. The Brown holding is now reflected in Guidelines 3(A) and 3(G)(5)(a)(2)(ii).

[18]   Here, Emily’s SSD payments are entitlements from the federal government that

       are not intended to be a substitute for Father’s earnings. We agree with the trial

       court that this income is like that which a child might earn from a part-time job.

[19]   In Lea v. Lea, 691 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. 1998), our Supreme Court rejected a

       noncustodial father’s argument that his support obligation should be reduced to

       zero due to his incapacitated adult daughter’s weekly income of about $144

       from a part-time job. The trial court had declined to relieve him of any child

       support obligation, instead calculating the weekly support obligation based on

       the income of the parents and the child and then apportioning the support based

       on the relative amount earned by each.

[20]   In affirming the trial court’s methodology, the Court emphasized the broad

       discretion afforded trial courts in determining child support obligations and

       observed that the Guidelines did not yet provide specific guidance on how to

       treat an incapacitated adult child’s own income. See id. at 1217. It made an

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023      Page 11 of 14
       analogy to the determination of child support where a child has extraordinary

       educational expenses and noted that the Guidelines call for the consideration of

       income and assistance available to the child, such as scholarships, grants,

       student loans, and summer and school-year employment. Id. (citing Child

       Supp. G. 3(E)(3), which is now found at Child Supp. G. 8 in a substantially

       amended form). The Court found this analogy useful “because it both

       acknowledges the propriety of considering a child’s earnings in making a

       support calculation and emphasizes the broad discretion the trial court enjoys in

       such matters.” Id. at 1218.

[21]   Ultimately, the Court refused to mandate that a trial court reduce the total

       support obligation by the amount the child contributes to his or her own

       support, explaining:

               Such an appellate court mandate impermissibly impinges upon
               the discretion that trial courts enjoy in determining support
               obligations. While such an approach might well be appropriate in
               some circumstances, we reject the notion that it is mandated
               either by statute or the Guidelines.

       Id. The Court found the different approach used by the trial court to have been

       “entirely consistent with the Guidelines in general and the analogous provisions

       discussing student earnings in particular.” Id.

[22]   After Lea, the following commentary was added to Guideline 3(F):

               2. Apportionment of Support When Incapacitated Adult Child
               has Earned Income. Under certain circumstances the earned

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023    Page 12 of 14
               income of a child may be considered in apportioning support. In
               calculating a support obligation with respect to an incapacitated
               adult child with earned income, the support obligation may be
               determined by apportioning the support based upon the relative
               amount earned by the parents and the child.

       (Emphases added). This commentary reflects the broad discretion afforded trial

       courts in these matters. That is, a trial court may consider the earned income of

       an incapacitated adult child when apportioning support, but such is not

       required. We believe this same flexibility should be afforded a trial court when

       considering the effect, if any, that an incapacitated adult child’s SSD benefits

       should have in the calculation of a particular support obligation.

[23]   Father’s position that the trial court should have offset his support obligation by

       the full amount of Emily’s SSD benefits is not supported by the Guidelines,

       analogous caselaw, or common sense. 4 And his claim that Emily’s financial

       needs are fully covered by her SSD benefits is pure folly and ignores the reality

       that, at the time of the final hearing, Mother and Emily remained financially

       unable to move out of Mother’s parents’ home. As the trial court observed,

       giving Father a credit toward his support obligation would significantly reduce

       the funds available for Emily’s care and effectively transfer most of the

       4
         We note that Father does not make the more tenable claim that the trial court should have determined the
       support obligation by apportioning support based on the relative amounts earned by Father, Mother, and
       Emily – the methodology used by the trial court in Lea. By our own calculations, such would have resulted
       in a reduction of his support obligation of about $40 per week, much lower than the full credit he sought.
       Regardless, Father did not present the trial court with a proposed child support worksheet with such
       calculations.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023                          Page 13 of 14
       monetary burden for Emily’s care to Mother and Mother’s parents. We cannot

       say that the trial court abused its discretion when it considered the

       circumstances of this case, along with Emily’s SSD benefits, and determined

       that Father was not entitled to a reduction in his support obligation.

[24]   Judgment affirmed.

       Weissmann, J. and Kenworthy, J. concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-DC-1384 | October 31, 2023     Page 14 of 14