Texas Divorce Attorney Blog
Texas spousal maintenance is generally intended to provide temporary rehabilitative support to spouses who are unable to support themselves. The appeals court recently reviewed a case in which spousal maintenance was ordered “in lieu of child support” for the parties’ now adult daughter, who is disabled.
The parties divorced in 1998. The trial court issued a modification order in 2014 that, “upon agreement of the parties,” the father would pay $1,096.55 per month in spousal maintenance in lieu of child support, purportedly to allow the daughter to qualify for more disability benefits. Additionally, any payments received for the benefit of the child, including from the Social Security Administration, were to be credited against the spousal maintenance.
Enforcement and Modification Proceedings
Each of the parents remarried. The mother’s husband passed away in 2020. She petitioned for enforcement of the spousal maintenance in early 2022, alleging the father had not made payments from June to December of 2021. The father filed a counter-petition, seeking to terminate the maintenance based on his retirement and the daughter getting half his Social Security Old Age Benefits (“SSOAB”), totaling $1,466 monthly plus increases for cost-of-living.
The mother testified that she had a monthly deficit. She said the daughter received 40 hours or respite care without cost during the workweek. She received $1,466 monthly from the father’s SSOAB. She said she could not remember if she received those benefits during the period for which she was seeking arrearages. The appeals court noted, however, that there was documentary evidence suggesting she had received part of the father’s SSOAB during that time, and that the amount had increased from $1,290.30 in 2022.
The father testified he had remarried and his monthly gross income was now $6,253.67, including wages his SSOAB, and retirement benefits. His net income was $5,044.42 each month. He testified he had stopped making the payments when he retired because the wife was receiving half of his SSOAB, an amount that exceeded his maintenance obligation. He argued that his child support obligation under Tex. Fam. Code § 154.125 would only be $1,008.88, which was less than the SSOAB.
After the hearing, the trial court signed an order terminating spousal support and ordering child support of $0 per month as long as the daughter received half of his SSOAB, which totaled more than would be required by the child support guidelines. The court found the daughter was “an adult-disabled child,” the father had been making payments for her without delinquency since June 1, 2021, and the amount of child support calculated under section 154.133 was less than the benefits the daughter received from the father’s SSOAB.
The Mother’s Appeal
The mother appealed, arguing the trial court erred in not finding the father failed to make his maintenance payments in 2021 and by “modifying” the obligation as of June 1, 2021. She also argued the trial court abused its discretion in modifying or terminating the spousal maintenance when she met the eligibility criteria. She further argued that the trial court had not made required findings pursuant to sections 154.130 and 154.306.
The appeals court first noted that the mother had seemed to characterize the order for “spousal maintenance . . . in lieu of child support” as just spousal maintenance, while the husband interpreted it to effectively mean child support. The appeals court pointed out that the 2014 order had referred separately to “spousal maintenance” and “spousal maintenance in lieu of child support,” and therefore determined that they had different meanings. Applying the mother’s interpretation would disregard the language in the “Child Support” section that provided the spousal maintenance was ordered “in lieu of child support” and based on an agreement by the parties. Applying the father’s interpretation would, however, give meaning to all of the language.
The appeals court also noted that the evidence supported this interpretation. The mother had testified the payments were identified as spousal maintenance so the daughter could receive additional benefits. According to the appeals court, the mother had agreed the payments were effectively child support. The father also testified that the called the payments “spousal maintenance” to increase the daughter’s benefits. In Texas, spousal maintenance is intended to provide temporary and rehabilitative support to a spouses who have a reduced ability to support themselves after engaging in homemaking activities and who do not have sufficient capital assets. In this case, however, the evidence showed that the payments were intended to benefit the daughter. The appeals court held that spousal maintenance in lieu of child support was a substitute for child support to allow the daughter to receive greater benefits.
After determining the meaning of “spousal maintenance in lieu of child support,” the appeals court rejected most of the mother’s arguments because they were based upon a contrary interpretation. It then considered her argument that the trial court abused its discretion by deviating from the statutory guidelines and failing to make findings under the statutes.
Pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 154.133, child support is adjusted for an obligor receiving SSOAB by deducting the amount of benefits received by or for the child from the amount that would be ordered under the child support guidelines.
Based on the evidence, the child support obligation would be $1,008.88, which was less than the SSOAB received for the daughter. The appeals court concluded the child support ordered by the court exceeded the guideline amount.
The mother also argued the trial court had not sufficiently considered the factors for determining child support for an adult child. Pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 154.306, the court must consider the adult child’s current and future needs related to their disability and the related care and supervision; whether the parent pays for the care or supervision or provides substantial supervision; the financial resources available to the parents; and other financial or other resources or programs available.
The mother had not requested findings of fact or conclusions of law, so the appeals court presumed the trial court made the findings necessary to support the judgment. The appeals court also noted she had not preserved the issue for appeal. It concluded, however, that it would not hold the trial court abused its discretion even if the mother had preserved the issue. There was conflicting information in the record regarding the extent of the daughter’s condition and how much was needed for her care. The appeals court noted there was evidence addressing all of the factors in section 154.306. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion.
Call McClure Law Group
The circumstances in this case are somewhat unusual, but this case shows that there can be additional considerations in a divorce between parents of a child with special needs. An experienced Dallas family law attorney can help you identify those concerns and make sure they are addressed. Schedule a consultation with McClure Law Group at 214.692.8200.