Appellate court tackles child support issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In three opinions released Wednesday, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on child support issues – the application of Social Security benefits to an arrearage and whether two fathers who were incarcerated for not paying child support could have their support obligations modified.

In Jonathon D. Douglas v. State of Indiana and Indiana Family & Social Services Admin., as Assignee of the Support Rights of Mechelle (Allen) McCrory, No. 40A01-1009-DR-466, and companion ruling Julie Nunley, n/k/a Waldrath v. Jeremy A. Nunley, No. 68A04-1105-DR-269, the judges rejected the state’s arguments that incarceration for nonsupport is a conscious decision to reduce income or that the courts should not follow Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2007), and Clark v. Clark, 902 N.E.2d 813, 817 (Ind. 2009), in reducing child support obligations of parents who are incarcerated for nonpayment.

The Indiana Supreme Court’s reasoning that reduction of child support obligations during incarceration serves the best interest of the child appears to apply regardless of the crime that led to the imprisonment, wrote Judge Paul Mathias in Douglas.

“While we share the frustration of the trial court and the frustration of greater, responsible, civil society with parents like Douglas, we are constrained to agree with Douglas’s reading of the applicable law, and we specifically decline to carve out an exception to our supreme court’s holdings in Lambert and Clark,” he wrote.

The appellate court reversed the Jennings Circuit Court’s denial of Jonathon Douglas’ petition to modify his child support obligation, and affirmed the Randolph Circuit Court’s order modifying Jeremy Nunley’s child support obligation. Both men were in prison for felony nonsupport of a dependent.

In Todd A. Anderson v. Shauna Anderson, No. 47A01-1104-DR-159, the appellate court had to interpret Indiana Child Support Guideline 3, which was silent on the issue of whether periodic Social Security Disability payments may be applied against a support arrearage that accumulated before the filing of a petition to modify support. The guideline was modified following Brown v. Brown, 849 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. 2006), and allowed for lump-sum SSD payments to be applied against a support arrearage that predated the filing of a petition to modify.

The judges speculated that the commentary to Guideline 3(G)(5) foreshadows that periodic SSD payments would be treated the same as lump-sum payments, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander.

“The Commentary provides that SSD payments for the benefit of a dependent child are regarded as income of the disabled parent and shall be credited as payment toward the disabled parent’s support obligation,” he wrote. “… we can see no meaningful distinction between SSD periodic payments and SSD lump-sum payments paid for the benefit of a dependent child.”

The COA reversed the denial of Todd Anderson’s request to apply all of the periodic SSD payments received to date by Shauna Anderson on their child’s behalf against his existing support arrearage. The judges remanded with instructions to calculate the amount of those payments and adjust the arrearage accordingly.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.