On October 5, 2018, the Appellate Division handed down an unpublished decision in M.B. v. D.B., a case that was appealed from Mercer County Superior Court, Family Division.
The parties signed a settlement agreement at the time of their divorce in October 2010. The parties agreed to share joint legal custody of their 11 year old and 13 year old children, and that M.B. would be the parent of primary residence (PPR). The parties also agreed that D.B. would pay child support to M.B.
In July 2011, M.B. was checked into an alcohol and drug abuse treatment center, and relinquished custody of the children to D.B. The Court terminated D.B.’s child support obligation in September 2011. In December 2011, the Court ordered M.B. to pay child support to D.B. (which she did not start paying until June 2012). In 2011, M.B. began receiving Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits for herself and the children. M.B. also received a lump sum payment for a period prior to the parties’ divorce. M.B. kept the SSD benefits paid to her for the children’s benefit because she felt that “she was the one disabled and she was paying child support.” M.B. also testified that she had “absolutely no idea what [she] did with any money . . . blew it.”
The SSD benefits that M.B. received were greater than the amount of child support she was paying to D.B. Basically, M.B. was making a net profit from the SSD payments that were supposed to be for her children’s benefit.
After a 3 day trial in May 2016, the Court issue an Order for M.B. to pay D.B. $74,584 for the SSD benefits she received for the children but kept for herself . The Order also allowed D.B. to deduct the money from his payments to M.B. for alimony due to her over the subsequent 9 years.
M.B. appealed. The Appellate Division noted that the trial court had carefully calculated the SSD payments M.B. received during
1) The period prior to the parties’ divorce (D.B. was awarded all funds);
2) The period when M.B. still had custody of the children (D.B. was awarded no funds);
3) The period when D.B. had custody and M.B. paid no support (D.B. was awarded all funds); and
4) The period when D.B. had custody and M.B paid support (D.B. was awarded the difference between what she paid and the SSD benefits she kept).
The Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, opining that that SSD benefits paid on behalf of children belong to the children, and should be paid to the custodial parent, and if a non-custodial parent’s child support obligation is greater than the benefit paid, they need to make up the difference.