What would you like to do?
You can get an apportionment form and I would suggest doing so until you go to court. However, US Supreme Court Law has ruled that the disability benefits received by a veteran are to support the disabled veteran and his/her dependents. This would include child support. Please visit the Related Link for more information.
Was this answer useful?
Thanks for the feedback!
United States Code, Title 38, Section 5301, Non assignability and exempt status of benefits, reads in part; Payment of benefits due or to become due under any law administer…ed by the secretary shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by the law, and such payments made to, or on a account, of a beneficiary shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatsoever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary. It is my understanding that a veteran's service-connected disability compensation is intended to financially compensate a military veteran disabled in the line of duty. This compensation is not an asset or property and should not be used to calculate a veterans net worth. Disability compensation is awarded to a veteran that has lost some/all physical or mental ability to work, or maintain a daily routine. Veteran's disability compensation is tax exempt and is not classified "income" by the IRS. VA disability compensation is non-transferable and cannot be awarded to a third party under any legal process whatsoever. Even after the veteran has deposited these funds into their personal bank account they are federally protected from attachment or seizure. Disability compensation belongs solely to the disabled veteran that has suffered the disability and therefore should not be used to calculate income.VA monetary benefit entitlements with are generally based on either the veterans disability or wartime service from service-connected injury or disease. Compensation is generally not considered remuneration (payment) for employment. However, the Social Security Act and the statutes governing benefit payment by the Department of Veterans Affairs do provide for processes by which dependents may obtain financial support from veterans' benefits under certain circumstances. Department of Veterans Affairs has issued regulations pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 5307 that provide for an apportionment of VA benefits between the veteran and his/her dependents under certain circumstances. VA regulations at 38 CFR Section 3.450(a)(1)(ii) provide that, if the veteran is not residing with his or her spouse, or if the veteran's children are not residing with the veteran and the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the spouse's or children's support, all or any part of the veteran's pension, compensation, or emergency officers' retirement pay may be apportioned. I would look for a organization call "Operation Firing for Effect" They are fighting to support Veterans rights and have been dealing with such cases. Their website is http://www.offe2008.org/. I hope that answers your question.
Yes, but see link
SSA payments paid on a child's behalf, based on the child support obligor's SSA account, count as child support for the month that they are paid. E.g., support obligation is …$100 for November 2009, SSA pays $200 on child's behalf, obligor owes nothing in addition. (BTW, the excess cannot be "carried over" to meet the support obligation for a different month.)
Yes, if he has income other than SSI or public assistance, but with SSD, he can motion the court to modify his order down to the amount being paid by Social Security. see li…nks
Why does a 100 percent permanent and totally disabled combat veteran still legally have to pay the full amount of child support ordered by the judge previous to their disability rating increase?
There's a lot of missing information here [so to speak]. I suspect the answer has to do with the fact that child support orders cannot be modified retroactively. You need a …modification. see links below
If on SSI, no. If on SSD, there's a separate child benefit check, but you still need to file for a modification in your support. see links below.
Yup. Garnishment of Disability Benefits for Child Support and/or Alimony The Law Offices of LaVan & Neidenberg receive many inquiries about the court's ability to garni…sh a veteran's disability compensation. The short answer is, yes. There are certain circumstances in which the court can write an order to garnish your disability benefits. Below is an excerpt from a memo written by the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families: The test to determine if your benefits are subject to garnishment is whether the payment is remuneration (payment) for employment as defined in section 459 [42 U.S.C. 659(a) and (h)]. While Federal salaries fit this test, and Title II Social Security Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance benefits (OASDI) can be garnished (entitlement to these benefits is based on employee contributions into FICA), VA monetary benefits, entitlement to which is generally based on either the veteran's disability and wartime service (pension) or disability from service-connected injury or disease (compensation), is generally not considered remuneration (payment) for employment. However, the Social Security Act and the statutes governing benefit payment by the Department of Veterans Affairs do provide for processes by which dependents may obtain financial support from veterans' benefits under certain circumstances. Below are two examples highlighting the laws or regulations under which benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs can be paid to dependents to fulfill child support obligations. Example #1: The Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 659(h)(1)(A)(ii)(V)] provides that if a veteran is eligible to receive military retired/retainer pay and has waived a portion of his/her retired/retainer pay in order to receive disability compensation from VA, that portion of the VA benefit received in lieu of retired/retainer pay is subject to garnishment. Example #2: The Department of Veterans Affairs has issued regulations pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 5307 that provide for an apportionment of VA benefits between the veteran and his/her dependents under certain circumstances. VA regulations at 38 CFR Section 3.450(a)(1)(ii) provide that, if the veteran is not residing with his or her spouse, or if the veteran's children are not residing with the veteran and the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the spouse's or children's support, all or any part of the veteran's pension, compensation, or emergency officers' retirement pay may be apportioned. Additionally, where a hardship is shown to exist, 38 CFR Section 3.451 authorizes a special apportionment of a beneficiary's pension, compensation, emergency officers' retirement pay, or dependency and indemnity compensation between the veteran and his or her dependents. The apportionment is based on the facts in the individual case, and may not cause undue hardship to the other persons in interest. Factors which determine the basis for special apportionment include the amount of veteran benefits payable, other resources and income of the veteran and those dependents in whose behalf apportionment is claimed, and special needs of the veteran, the dependents, and those applying for apportionment. Ordinarily, the VA considers that an apportionment of more than 50 percent of the veteran's benefits would constitute undue hardship on the veteran, while an apportionment of less than 20 percent would not provide a reasonable amount for any apportionee. The maximum that the Defense Finance & Accounting Service (DFAS) will garnish, outlined in 5 CFR §581.402, is the following: 50% if the servicemember is providing more than half the support to other dependents not covered by the order.55% if the servicemember is providing more than half the support to other dependents not covered by the order, but has a support arrearage.60% if the servicemember is not providing more than half the support to other dependents not covered by the order.65% if the servicemember is not providing more than half the support to other dependents not covered by the order, but has a support arrearage. Apportionment Apportionment is very similar to wage garnishment. The VA will hear requests for apportionment from spouses or other dependents to whom the veteran may be required to pay child support or alimony. The veteran will be allowed an opportunity to appeal an application for apportionment. The timeliness and other requirements are strict and the veteran must pay close attention to the details outlined in the apportionment proceeding notice. The veteran who receives notification that an apportionment request has been made must act quickly. The veteran may ask for a personal hearing to dispute the apportionment as well as ask that no deductions be made to the veteran's compensation payment until appeals are exhausted. The most common reason for apportionment is child support arrears. The veteran must recognize that in many states, any money collected through apportionment and delivered to the obligee (custodial parent) may not actually satisfy the state as a child support payment. Many states require that payments must be recorded directly through the state's child support enforcement authority or it will be classed as a "gift" and it will not be applied toward arrears. Learning as much as you can about apportionment is your best defense. Part 3 - General Claims Process SubptV - General Authorization Issues and Claimant Notifications Chapter 3 - Apportionments Apportionments § 3.450 General. (a)(1) All or any part of the pension, compensation, or emergency officers' retirement pay payable on account of any veteran may be apportioned. (i) On behalf of his or her spouse, children, or dependent parents if the veteran is incompetent and is being furnished hospital treatment, institutional, or domiciliary care by the United States, or any political subdivision thereof. (ii) If the veteran is not residing with his or her spouse, or if the veteran's children are not residing with the veteran and the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the spouse's or children's support. (2) Where any of the children of a deceased veteran are not living with the veteran's surviving spouse, the pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation otherwise payable to the surviving spouse may be apportioned. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5307) (b) Except as provided in §3.458(e), no apportionment of disability or death benefits will be made or changed solely because a child has entered active duty with the air, military, or naval services of the United States. (c) No apportionment will be made where the veteran, the veteran's spouse (when paid "as wife" or "as husband"), surviving spouse, or fiduciary is providing for dependents. The additional benefits for such dependents will be paid to the veteran, spouse, surviving spouse, or fiduciary. (d) Any amounts payable for children under §§3.459, 3.460 and 3.461 will be equally divided among the children. (e) The amount payable for a child in custody of and residing with the surviving spouse shall be paid to the surviving spouse. Amounts payable to a surviving spouse for a child in the surviving spouse's custody but residing with someone else may be apportioned if the surviving spouse is not reasonably contributing to the child's support. (f) Prior to release of any amounts the relationship of the claimant and the dependency of a parent will be fully developed, and the necessary evidence secured. (g) The provisions of §3.460 are applicable where the surviving spouse is entitled to a higher rate of pension under the circumstances described in that section. § 3.452 Situations when benefits may be apportioned. Veterans benefits may be apportioned: (a) If the veteran is not residing with his or her spouse or his or her children and a claim for apportionment is filed for or on behalf of the spouse or children. (b) Pending the appointment of a guardian or other fiduciary. (c)(1) Where an incompetent veteran without a fiduciary is receiving institutional care by the United States or a political subdivision, his or her benefit may be apportioned for a spouse or child, or, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2), for a dependent parent, unless such benefit is paid to a spouse ("as wife" or "as husband") for the use of the veteran and his or her dependents. (2) Where a married veteran is receiving section 306 or improved pension and the amount payable is reduced under §3.551(c) because of hospitalization, an apportionment may be paid to the veteran's spouse as provided in §3.454(b). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a); 5307; 5503(a)) (d) Where additional compensation is payable on behalf of a parent and the veteran or his or her guardian neglects or refuses to contribute such an amount to the support of the parent the additional compensation will be paid to the parent upon receipt of a claim. Cross References: Institutional awards. See §3.852. Disappearance of veteran. See §3.656. Reduction because of hospitalization. See §3.551. Penal institutions. See §3.666. [26 FR 7266, Aug. 11, 1961, as amended at 27 FR 6974, July 24, 1962; 40 FR 21724, May 19, 1975; 44 FR 45940, Aug. 6, 1979; 66 FR 48560, Sept. 21, 2001; 68 FR 34542, June 10, 2003] § 3.451 Special apportionments. Without regard to any other provision regarding apportionment where hardship is shown to exist, pension, compensation, emergency officers' retirement pay, or dependency and indemnity compensation may be specially apportioned between the veteran and his or her dependents or the surviving spouse and children on the basis of the facts in the individual case as long as it does not cause undue hardship to the other persons in interest, except as to those cases covered by §3.458(b) and (c). In determining the basis for special apportionment, consideration will be given such factors as: Amount of Department of Veterans Affairs benefits payable; other resources and income of the veteran and those dependents in whose behalf apportionment is claimed; and special needs of the veteran, his or her dependents, and the apportionment claimants. The amount apportioned should generally be consistent with the total number of dependents involved. Ordinarily, apportionment of more than 50 percent of the veteran's benefits would constitute undue hardship on him or her while apportionment of less than 20 percent of his or her benefits would not provide a reasonable amount for any apportionee
It could happen.
Yes you do. Most states will base the support order on the amount of money the obligor receives for his or her disability. If the children receive dependent benefits the amoun…t the non custodial parent will pay will be based on the amount the children receive in dependent benefits. If the ncp receives 1500.00 per month and the court ordered child support is for 20% or 300.00 per month and the children receive 400.00 per month in dependent benefits then the ncp will have to pay 0, but if the children receive 200.00 then the ncp will owe 100.00 hope this helps
The matter of the person being a veteran and apparently on disability is not relevant when it comes to child support obligations. The custodial parent should follow the requir…ed legal procedure for his or her state to file for child support benefits. Even if an obligated parent is on any type of disability, (SSI, SSD, Veteran benefits, etc) he or she is still legally obligated to support their minor child/children. Child support cannot be garnished from SSI or public assistance. Virtually any other income is fair game.
Yes, Yes you do!!
Child support can be garnished from VA and Social Security payments (but not SSI). Your local child support agency can help you with this.
In general, child support is a percentage of the obligor's net income. Only SSI and public assistance are exempt from this calculation.
Yes, unless your income is SSI or public assistance.
In ALL 50 states you pay child support until your obligation is complete. If you owe back support (regardless of what state you are in) you MUST pay the back support regardles…s of the age or disability of the child. In unique circumstance the age of the child support obligation can be increased through a guardianship probate court case
Short answer is if THE NON-CUSTODIAL parent receives Social Security Disability Insurance ((yes )) RE: AUXILIARY BENEFITS ~~~ BUT ~~~ But if NON-CUSTODIAL parent only ge…t Supplemental Security Income pays benefits based on financial need... Then the Answer is no , NOT AT ALL... Califorina Family Code Section 4504 states that it will only off-set the dollar for dollar payment from federal benefits the NON-CUSTODIAL parent receives from their own benefits. If you have custody and the benefits are from YOUR benefits, it will not off-set the non-custodial parent's obligation to pay support. OPINIONFRIEDLANDER, Judge.Todd A. Anderson (Father) appeals the trial court's denial of his request to credit against his child support obligation Social Security benefits Shauna Anderson (Mother) received on behalf of their child, D.A., prior to Father's petition to modify child support. Father presents that ruling as the sole issue on appeal.We reverse.The relevant facts are undisputed. Father and Mother were divorced by decree of dissolution in 1995. At the time, they had one child, D.A., who was born in 1994. Father was ordered to pay $25.00 in weekly child support. Father became disabled and in 2001 began receiving $771.00 monthly Social Security disability benefits (SSD). On November 16, 2010, Father filed a "Petition to Modify Support Obligation and Apply Credit." Appellant's Appendix at 22. The matter proceeded to a hearing on February 28, 2011. Later, Father submitted the following Verified Statement of Evidence summarizing the evidence presented at that hearing relevant to this appeal:The parties have one child, [D.A.], born March 1, 1994. Todd Anderson is disabled with chronic pancreatitis and receives $771.00 per month in Social Security disability insurance benefits. He has been receiving benefits since May 2001. He applied for disability benefits in 2001 and was approved for benefits within three months.[D.A.] has also been receiving benefits off of Mr. Anderson's disability account. Her benefits started the same time her father's benefits started. She currently receives $68.00 per month off of her father's disability account. From 2001 until the date Mr. Anderson filed his modification petition, she received a total of $9,314.00 in benefits off of her father's account, $240 of which was in a lump sum paid in 2001. She has received the rest of the benefits on a monthly basis from 2001 on.Id. at 7-8.At the hearing, Father sought a modification of his support, including, among other things, to have the $9,314.00 in SSD benefits paid to D.A. since 2001 credited against his child support arrearage. The trial court issued the following order relative to that request:The Court, having taken this matter under advisement, hereby modifies Petitioner's ongoing support obligation as follows: $19.00 per week, effective November 16, 2010.Pursuant to Child Support Guideline 3.G.5.b, Petitioner's arrearage as of February 28, 2011 is calculated at $12,838.23. This calculation credits Petitioner with the $240 lump sum Social Security disability benefit received by the child.Id. at 6. Father appeals the determination that he is not entitled to credit the entire amount of disability benefits received by D.A. since 2001 against his support arrearage.When the issue presented is a pure question of law and there are no disputed facts, we apply a de novo standard of review. Reese v. Reese, 696 N.E.2d 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). "`A pure question of law is one that requires neither reference to extrinsic evidence, the drawing of inferences therefrom, nor the consideration of credibility questions.'" Id.at 462 (quoting Indiana Ins. Co. v. Allis, 628 N.E.2d 1251, 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied.) In the instant case, the facts are undisputed and the determination of whether Father is entitled to credit the entire amount of periodic SSD payments received by D.A. against his child support arrearage is a pure question of law. We therefore review the trial court's ruling de novo. See id.Mother contends this case should be resolved in her favor by our Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Brown, 849 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. 2006). In Brown, a parent sought credit for a lump-sum SSD payment against an accumulated child support arrearage and also sought to credit his monthly SSD benefits against his future support obligation. Our Supreme Court denied that request, holding: "lump-sum payments of retroactive Social Security disability benefits to children cannot be credited against child support arrearages that are accumulated before the noncustodial parent has filed a petition to modify based on the disability." Id. at 615. Also in Brown, the Supreme Court clarified that a disabled parent "with respect to whom Social Security disability benefits are paid to the parent's child is entitled to petition the court for modification of the parent's child support to reflect a credit for the amount of the payments. The credit takes effect as of the date of the petition." Id. at 614 (emphasis supplied). Thus, according to Brown, SSD payments to a dependent may not be credited against a support arrearage that accumulated before the filing of a modification petition - i.e., they may not be applied retroactively.Effective January 1, 2010, Indiana Child Support Guideline 3 was amended to specifically address the subject of SSD payments. In relevant part, it affirmed the Supreme Court's determination in Brown that SSD payments to a child may be credited against a noncustodial parent's child support obligation. See Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(a)(2)(ii). On the other hand, the amended Guideline 3 effectively overruled Brown's holding that lump-sum SSD payments could not be applied retroactively to arrearages accumulated prior to the filing of a petition for modification. With regard to arrearages and SSD payments, Comment 3(G) provides, in relevant part: "A lump sum payment of retroactive Social Security Disability benefits shall be applied as a credit against an existing child support arrearage if the custodial parent, as representative payee, received a lump sum retroactive payment, without the requirement of a filing of a Petition to Modify Child Support." Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(b)(1). The Commentary to Guideline 3 clarifies that "[t]he Guidelines now allow the courts to apply the lump sum SSD benefits toward an existing child support arrearage if the custodial parent, as representative payee, receives a lump sum payment. This credit is appropriate without the requirement of a filing of a Petition to Modify Child Support."Read in conjunction with Brown and Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(b)(4),1 this commentary clearly indicates that lump-sum SSD payments to a custodial parent on behalf of the child may be applied against a support arrearage that predated the filing of a petition to modify support. It is silent, however, with respect to the issue presented here, i.e., whether periodicSSD payments may be applied against a support arrearage that accumulated before the filing of a petition to modify support. The parties advocate different interpretations of this silence.Mother contends that a petition to modify support is still required in order to apply an SSD payment against an arrearage because "the Commentary to the Guidelines, when discussing the holding in Brown, do not indicate that the addition of section 5 was intended to change the effect of the holding in Brown." Appellee's Brief at 7. Indeed, Mother argues that had it so intended, "the Guidelines would have stated that the holding with respect to filing a petition to modify set out in Brown was also superseded." Id. Regardless of whether the relevant section of Commentary to Guideline 3 states it, the fact remains that the text of the Guideline itself overturns Brown in this regard, viz., "[a] lump sum payment of retroactive Social Security Disability benefits shall be applied as a credit against an existing child support arrearage if the custodial parent, as representative payee, received a lump sum retroactive payment, without the requirement of a filing of a Petition to Modify Child Support." Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(b)(1) (emphasis supplied).Father, on the other hand, contends in effect that the modified Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5) was intended primarily to overruleBrown on the issue of whether lump-sum SSD payments apply retroactively to arrearages accumulated prior to a petition to modify that was based upon SSD payments. Father contends:Under the rationale given in the new guidelines and under existing case law, there is no reason to treat regular monthly payments any differently than a lump-sum payment that is merely the accumulation of regular monthly payments that the Social Security Administration did not pay earlier because of a delay in finding the person to disabled [sic]. In fact, those regular monthly payments present an even clearer case of "payments that do not technically conform to the original support decree", Commentary to Child Supp. G., but for which a credit must be given.Appellant's Brief at 11. We find ourselves in agreement with Father.The Commentary to Guideline 3(G) notes that Brown recognized that the SSD benefits paid to a child were recognized as earnings of the disabled parent, and therefore "[i]t follows ... that the payment received for the benefit of the child should be applied to satisfy the disabled parent's support obligation." The Commentary further notes that the revised Child Support Guidelines change the law regarding the application of SSD benefits with respect to SSD lump-sum payments. Under Brown and Hieston v. State, Indiana Family & Soc. Servs. Admin. Child Support Bureau, 885 N.E.2d 59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied, such payments were considered mere gratuities and could not be credited against existing arrearages unless the arrearage post-dated a petition to modify based upon the SSD payments. As is the case with respect to the current version of Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5), Brown and Hieston addressed only lump-sum SSD payments and said nothing about periodic SSD payments, at least so far as applying proceeds against an existing arrearage. We are therefore left to speculate as to how the Guidelines would treat periodic SSD payments in this regard. We believe the Commentary to Guideline 3(G)(5) foreshadows that periodic SSD payments would be treated the same as lump-sum SSD payments.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. The revision in Guideline 3(G)(5) is based upon the following rationale:[T]he lump sum payment is merely a method of payment applied to a past support obligation not paid. The distinction is between modification of support which changes the rate of support, e.g. from $100.00 per week to $50.00 per week, as opposed to credit for an indirect payment. Modification of a child support obligation still requires the filing of a petition for modification as set forth in Guideline 4.The lump sum payment is a method of payment that may not be specifically authorized by express court order but which should be recognized as a payment of support. Indiana case law establishes that credit can be allowed for payments that do not technically conform to the original support decree. For example, where the obligated parent makes payments directly to the custodial parent rather than through the clerk of the court, the Supreme Court has recognized these payments when there was sufficient proof to convince a trier of fact that the required payments were actually made. Proof of the lump sum SSD benefit payment is not difficult because the Social Security award certificate is a record easily admitted into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule under IRE 803(6) and (8) (reports of a public agency setting forth its regularly recorded activity) and trial courts are rarely burdened with an evidentiary dispute about what was paid, when or to whom, once the Social Security records are shared. By contrast, the informal arrangement disputes between parties to modify and reduce the actual amount of weekly support below that ordered in the divorce decree are actual attempts to retroactively modify the amount of support, which are prohibited. Similar to the nonconforming payment, the lump sum payment shall be applied as a credit to an existing child support arrearage.Commentary to Child Supp. G. 3(G). For purposes of the foregoing rationale, we can see no meaningful distinction between SSD periodic payments and SSD lump-sum payments paid for the benefit of a dependent child.In neither case does the petitioner seek a modification of the amount of support to be paid. As the Commentary makes clear, there is a critical distinction between seeking a modification of support and seeking credit for the receipt of SSD benefits. With the former, a party seeks to alter the amount of support that is to be paid. With the latter, the party does not seek an alteration in the amount of the child support obligation, but rather seeks to credit against that obligation payments made for the support of the child that are not in a form explicitly authorized by the original child support order. This distinction was not discussed in Brown, at least with respect to the question of whether SSD payments could be applied to an arrearage that accumulated prior to a petition to seek credit for those SSD payments. In fact, it would appear that the court viewed the distinction as irrelevant on that question, as it cited the prohibition against "`retroactively modify[ing] an obligor's duty to pay a delinquent support payment'", Brown v. Brown, 849 N.E.2d at 614 (quoting Ind. Code Ann. § 31-16-16-6 (West, Westlaw through end of 2011 1st Regular Sess.)), in support of its conclusion that no credit would be given for such payments that predated the petition to modify. The Commentary to Guideline 3(G)(5), however, clearly distinguishes between seeking modification of the amount of a support obligation and seeking credit for an indirect payment of support. In fact, it appears that the Commentary places great importance on this distinction in effectively overturning Brown on the matter of crediting SSD lump-sum payments against an arrearage that accumulated prior to the petition seeking that credit.As the Commentary notes, the petitioner in cases such as the instant case seeks credit for an indirect payment that "should be recognized as a payment of support." Id. With respect to both lump-sum and periodic SSD payments, the payments are considered income of the disabled parent and not mere "gratuities from the federal government." Brown v. Brown, 849 N.E.2d at 614. Therefore, they should be credited against the disabled parent's support obligation. As such, just as with lump-sum payments, applying periodic payments to an accumulated arrearage "is merely a method of payment applied to a past support obligation not paid." Id. Proof of the periodic SSD benefit payment is presumably no more difficult than is the case with lump-sum payments because "the Social Security award certificate is a record easily admitted into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule under IRE 803(6) and (8)[.]" Id. Thus, we conclude there is no principled reason to treat periodic SSD benefit payments to a child differently than lump-sum SSD benefit payments, i.e., it "shall be applied as a credit to an existing child support arrearage" without the need to file a petition for modification. Id.The trial court is reversed insofar as it denied Father's request to apply all of the periodic SSD payments received to date by Mother on D.A.'s behalf against his existing support arrearage. This matter is remanded with instructions to calculate the amount of those payments and to adjust the amount of Father's arrearage accordingly.Judgment reversed and remanded.