Hermosillo v. Hermosillo, 962 P.2d 891 (Alaska 1998). Social Security payments, to which the child was entitled based on the father's disability, should be credited against the father's child support obligation.

Drummond v. State, 350 Md. 502, 714 A.2d 163 (1998). Although a non-custodial parent may be entitled to modification of a child support award, when his/her child receives Social Security disability dependency payments, the parent is not entitled to an automatic credit against the child support obligation equal to the amount of Social Security disability dependency benefits received by the child.

Gress v. Gress, 257 Neb. 112, 596 N.W.2d 8 (1999). A non-custodial parent is entitled to substitute Social Security benefits for payments toward his/her child support obligation during the period for which he/she is eligible. Excess SS dependency payments are to be credited against the child support arrearage accrued since the date of the occurrence that entitled the parent to the benefits, unless the allowance of such credit would be inequitable in a particular case.

Tibor v. Bendrick, 1999 N.D. 92, 503 N.W.2d 395 (1999). Social Security dependency payments for the child must be credited as payments towards the obligor's child support obligation in the period the payment is intended to cover, but cannot be credited as a payment for any other month or period. Thus, lump sum payments to a child could not be applied to offset arrears accrued prior to the onset of the period the payment was intended to cover (i.e., Dad's date of injury).

In re Marriage of Robinson, 65 Cal. App.4^th 93 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). Social Security benefits received by the son because of the father's disability were properly credited against the father's child support obligation in the month received. The child support agency was not required to apply the benefits received, to the extent they exceeded the father's monthly support obligation, against his accrued support arrearages.

Berg v. D.D.M., Minn. Ct. App., 603 N.W.2d 361), 1116. No. C4-99-905, 12/21/99. Social Security survivor benefits received by a child upon her father's death may be credited against his estate's statutory liability for her future support. The court also held that the obligor's beneficial interest in an investment account he and his wife maintained with a stock brokerage firm could not be reached after his death to cover his child support payments.

Mosley v. Mosley, Va. Ct. App.), 1021. No. 2851-98-2, 11/2/99. Social Security disability payments that exceed the father's child support obligation are credited both against ongoing child support and accumulated arrears. The disability payments may not be credited against amounts he owes for alimony and pension benefits.

In re Marriage of Carr, 591 N.W.2d 627 (Iowa, 1999). 50% of a Workers Compensation settlement was subject to garnishment to collect past due child support. Attorneys' fees, costs and Title XIX claim would not be deducted.

Davis v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, No. 99-1422, 2000 Ark. LEXIS 246 (Ark. May 18, 2000). Subjecting SSI payments to State court child support orders would do major damage to a clear and substantial Federal interest. Therefore, the parent's SSI benefits cannot be used for child support purposes.

Department of Revenue v. Green, No. S-7740, No. 5148, 1999 Alas. LEXIS 90 (Alaska, July 30, 1999). Lump sum payment of future support was paid to the mother without judicial approval. The child support order required the father to pay support through the Child Support Enforcement Division because the mother and child were receiving public assistance. When the mother returned to welfare dependence, the father was liable to the State for reimbursement, independent of any agreement with the mother.

Davis v. Dep't of Revenue, 689 So.2d 433 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997). The trial court erred when it awarded child support retroactive to the date of the child's birth fifteen years earlier, since the mother had previously made no attempt to contact the father, who had attempted more than once to contact the mother by mail, but the letters came back marked "return to sender."

Dep't of Revenue v. Carbonaro, 712 So.2d 1225 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998). The trial court erred when it ordered the father to pay child support retroactive to the date when he received service, rather than the date when the action was filed. The court should not have denied the mother's request for retroactive support without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division v. Leitch, Nos. S-8680, 5262, 2000 Alas. LEXIS 35 (Alaska, Apr. 14, 2000). The child support agency had authority to prospectively modify child support by ordering the mother to pay child support to the father, after he obtained de facto custody of the child, although the mother was the child support obligee, under an existing order. The father had assigned his child support rights to the State in exchange for welfare benefits for the child.

Hurd v. Dep't of Human Services, 580 N.W.2d 383 (Iowa, 1998). The father was not entitled to credit for payments made directly to the children and service providers on behalf of the children.

Udelhoven v. Dep't of Health and Human Services, 1999 Mt. 192, 1999 Mont. LEXIS 199 (1999). The District Court did not err when it denied the mother's motion for enlargement of time and granted the agency's motion to dismiss the mother's petition for judicial review. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the petition, because it was not timely filed.

Department of Revenue v. Schofield, No. S-8370. No. 5212, 1999 Alas. LEXIS 159 (Alaska, Dec. 3, 1999). The trial court abused its discretion when it modified the father's child support obligation retroactively.

Scully v. Scully, No. S-8734, 1999 Alas. LEXIS 121 (Sept. 10, 1999). Statutory change, which increased the duration of the child support obligation, constitutes a change in circumstances, permitting modification and extension of existing child support orders entered before the legislature's action.

Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Eagle, 336 Ark. 51, 983 S.W.2d 429 (1999). An order, entered by a responding court in a RURESA enforcement action, does not modify the amount due under the underlying order.

Department of Human Services ex rel. Greenhaw v. Stewart, 579 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa 1998). The district court had subject matter jurisdiction to modify the amount of child support ordered in an Iowa divorce decree, pursuant to a petition brought by the Child Support Recovery Unit, although the mother was not receiving public assistance and the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify the divorce decree.

Rupp, ex rel Secretary of Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services v. Grubb, 265 Kan.711, 962 P.2d 1074 (1998). Where a parent is incarcerated in a correctional facility, the fact of incarceration, standing alone, is not legal justification for the suspension or modification of the parent's child support obligation previously determined under the Kansas Child Support guidelines.

Mason v. Dep't of Health and Human Services, No. 98-263, 1998 Mt. LEXIS 310 (1998). Father's due process rights were not affected by alleged procedural defects. Alleged oral agreement did not modify the father's child support obligation, under a Hawaii order.

Robertson ex rel. Nelson v. Anderson, 1999 N.D. 19 592 N.W.2d 923 (1999). Child support guidelines expressly prohibit abatement of support obligations during temporary periods when the child resides with the non-custodial parent.

Schumacher v. Schumacher, 1999 N.D. 10, 589 N.W.2d 185 (1999). The father's child support obligation should not be abated during the three-month summer visitation period. The court correctly reduced the obligation, based on the father's payment of out-of pocket medical expenses.

Dep't of Family Services v. Paterson, 957 P.2d 1307 (Wyo. 1998). The oral modification agreement entered into by the father and custodial grandmother was not valid and did not prevent the State from collecting support assigned to the State in exchange for public assistance payments.

Koss v. Koss, 981 P.2d 106 (Alaska, 1999). Alaska's ten-year statute of limitations does not bar the child support agency from using its administrative authority to collect child support arrears more than ten years after they have been reduced to judgment.

Malone v. Malone, 338 Ark. 20, 991 S.W.2d 546 (Ark. 1999). The OCSE's action on behalf of the mother, to collect child support arrears, reduced to judgment in 1985, was not barred by Arkansas' 10-year limitation on an action to enforce a judgment, because there is no limitations period on Office of Child Support Enforcement collection of child support arrears, pursuant to section 9-14-235.

Sanderson v. Harris, 330 Ark. 741, 957 S.W.2d 685 (1997). OCSE's action to collect child support arrears was not barred by Arkansas' 10-year limitation on an action to enforce a judgment.

Thomas (Worthington) v. Worthington, 979 P.2d 1183 (Idaho 1999). An obligee's attempt to renew a judgment for child support arrearages was not sufficient to toll the State statute of limitations requiring that an action to collect back support be filed within five years after the child reaches majority, the Idaho Supreme Court decided. The court noted that to avoid the operation of the statute of limitations, Idaho Code Sec. 5-245, a proceeding to collect child support must be commenced before the child reaches 23. It reasoned that an action sufficient to avoid the statute does not include a complaint to renew a judgment for arrearages because the act of collecting necessarily occurs after a judgment has already been obtained. Declaring that the trial judge incorrectly interpreted the statute to include a complaint for renewal of a judgment for past-due support as an action to collect back support, the court accordingly reversed the denial of the obligor's motion to hold the obligee's judgment for back support to be unenforceable based on expiration of the limitations period.

Cole v. Harris, 330 Ark. 420, 953 S.W.2d 586 (1997). Statute of limitation for child support commences with an initial order of support and extends until the child reaches 23.

Bitzer (Faucher) v. Bitzer, Ark. Ct. App., 986, S.W.2d 122), 1229. No. 98-648, 2/24/99. A trial court did not err in holding that under the Federal Consumer Protection Act the maximum amount of income that could be withheld from a remarried father's earnings for child support was 55 percent. The court agreed with the judge that the father was "supporting his [new] spouse" and thus came within garnishment provision of the act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1673) which provides that where a person is "supporting his spouse," the maximum amount of disposable earnings that may be subject to garnishment is 55 percent. Explaining that the term "supporting his spouse" was purposely left undefined by Congress to permit State courts to define it on a case by case basis, the court rejected the mother's argument that the provision's 65 percent limit--which applies to a person not supporting a spouse--should be used here.

Harmon v. Dep't of Social and Health Services, 134 Wash.2d 523, 951 P.2d 770 (1998). Family Expense Statute should not have been used to impose a primary financial responsibility on a stepfather, for the support of stepchildren, who were in the residential care of their father and stepmother.

Hermosillo v. Hermosillo, 963 P.2d 891 (Alaska 1998). Visitation sanctions cannot be offset against an obligor's child support arrears.

Walton v. Hammons, 192 F.3d 590 (6^th Cir. 1999). The State exceeded its authority when it disqualified the entire household for food stamp benefits, based on the mother's failure to cooperate in establishing paternity of her child. Plaintiffs in this class action were children who were denied benefits.