Humphries v. Buchanan

80 Va. App. 774

900 S.E.2d 550

Pamela Kay HUMPHRIES

v.Robert Brian BUCHANAN, et al.

Record No. 0877-22-2

Court of Appeals of Virginia, Richmond.

May 7, 2024

UPON A REHEARING EN BANC, FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, Edward A. Robbins, Jr., Judge

Robert W. Loftin (J. Tracy Walker IV; Juliet B. Clark; Carson R. Bartlett; McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, on brief), Richmond, for appellant.

No brief or argument for appellees.

Present: Chief Judge Decker, Judges Beales, Huff, O’Brien, AtLee, Malveaux, Athey, Fulton, Ortiz, Causey, Friedman, Chaney, Raphael, Lorish, Callins and White

OPINION BY JUDGE DANIEL E. ORTIZ

[1] Supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits received by a disabled child are not an "independent financial resource[ ]" under Code § 20-108.1(B)(9) that may justify a reduction in a parent’s child-support obligation. Rather, SSI benefits are dependent financial resources, contingent on child-support payments received from a payor parent. Thus, the circuit court erred in reducing Robert Brian Buchanan’s child-support obligation based on SSI benefits received by his disabled adult child, N. We therefore reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand for the entry of a new order of child support and calculation of retroactive support owed.

Background

Pamela Humphries ("mother") and Robert Brian Buchanan ("father") divorced in 2012. Father initially took physical custody of the parties’ three minor children. In 2017, upon father’s request, mother moved to Virginia and took sole physical custody of the children. In 2018, mother moved to reinstate child support. At the time, the parties’ daughter, A., was still a minor, and mother provided full-time care to N., who was 18 but required intensive support due to his Down syndrome, autism, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.¹ The Chesterfield Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court ("JDR court") ordered father to pay $1,019 in monthly support for A. and N.

In 2020, the Division of Child Support Enforcement moved on father’s behalf to reduce his child-support obligation.² The JDR court reduced father’s monthly payment to $740. On appeal to the circuit court, the parties stipulated that based on mother’s lack of income and father’s monthly income of $4,749, the presumptive obligation for the two children was $1,103. Father requested a downward deviation from the guidelines on several grounds, including N.’s receipt of SSI benefits based on his disability. Following a hearing on October 15, 2021, the circuit court found N.’s SSI benefits to be an "independent financial resource[ ]" under Code § 20-108.1(B)(9) and reduced father’s monthly support payments by $700, roughly the amount of N.’s SSI benefits. Upon mother’s motion for reconsideration, the circuit court affirmed its holding that N.’s SSI benefits were an independent financial resource, but credited father for only about half of the SSI amount, for a monthly reduction of $336. Ultimately, the court ordered father to pay $766.50 in monthly support.

Mother appealed, asserting three assignments of error. She argued first that the circuit court erred by treating N.’s SSI benefits as an independent financial resource that could reduce father’s child-support obligation. She also contended that there was no evidence of a material change in circumstances to support the change in child support and that father failed to rebut the presumption that the child-support guidelines were correct. A panel of this Court found that it could not consider mother’s appeal because she failed to file a transcript of the circuit court’s October 15, 2021 hearing or a written statement of facts as required by Rule 5A:8. One judge concurred in part and dissented in part, noting that mother’s first assignment of error raised a pure question of law that could be reviewed without a transcript. We granted mother’s request for en banc review as to the first assignment of error, staying the panel’s decision pending review by the full Court. We now reinstate the panel’s mandate as to assignments of error two and three but vacate the panel’s decision as to assignment of error one.

Analysis

[2–4] The sole issue before the en banc Court is whether the circuit court erred in finding that a disabled child’s SSI benefits may be an "independent financial resource[ ]" under Code § 20-108.1(B)(9). The appeal turns on the interpretation of Code § 20-108.1(B), "a pure question of law that the Court reviews de novo." Cleary v. Cleary, 63 Va. App. 364, 369, 757 S.E.2d 588 (2014).³

I. A circuit court calculates child support by determining the guideline amount and then deviating if the guideline amount would be inappropriate or unjust.

[5, 6] Following divorce proceedings, a court may enter an order providing for "support of the minor children of the parties" or "support of a child over the age of 18" in some cases. Code § 20-107.2. Code § 20-124.2(0 permits support payments to qualifying adult children who are "severely and permanently mentally or physically disabled."⁴ "Statutory child support guidelines were designed 'to assure that both the child’s needs and the parent’s ability to pay are considered in determining the amount of support awards.’ " Alwan v. Alwan, 70 Va. App. 599, 605, 830 S.E.2d 45 (2019) (quoting Milam v. Milam, 65 Va. App. 439, 453, 778 S.E.2d 535 (2015)). Ultimately, "[t]he court’s paramount concern when awarding child support is the best interest of the children." Id. (quoting Stiles v. Stiles, 48 Va. App. 449, 456, 632 S.E.2d 607 (2006)).

Child support is calculated in two steps. First, following the guidelines in Code § 20-108.2, the court determines the presumptively correct amount of child support to award. Second, if the court finds based on factors listed in Code § 20-108.1(B) that "the application of such guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case," the court may deviate from the guidelines and set a different amount of child support. If the court orders a deviation, the child-support amount "shall be determined by relevant evidence pertaining to the [listed] factors affecting the obligation, the ability of each party to provide child support, and the best interests of the child." Code § 20408.1(B). One such factor is the "[i]ndependent financial resources of the child or children." Code § 20-108.1(B)(9). At issue is whether SSI benefits received by a child based on their disability qualify as an independent financial resource. See id.

II. SSI benefits provide a minimum standard of living for low-income disabled children and adults.

Congress established the SSI program "[f]or the purpose of establishing a national program to provide supplemental security income to individuals who have attained age 65 or are blind or disabled." 42 U.S.C. § 1381. "The basic purpose underlying" the program "is to assure a minimum level of income for people who are … disabled and who do not have sufficient income and resources to maintain a standard of living at the established [f]ederal minimum income level." 20 C.F.R. § 416.110.

A person is eligible for SSI benefits if they are "aged, blind, or disabled" and "ha[ve] limited income and resources"; "[t]hus, the amount of income [they] have is a major factor" in determining both eligibility and the amount of SSI benefits paid. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1100; see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.410 ("The monthly rate [of benefits received] is reduced by the amount of the individual’s income which is not excluded" from income by the regulations.). In calculating a beneficiary’s payments, "income" includes "alimony and support payments," defined as "cash or in-kind contributions to meet some or all of a person’s needs for food or shelter … made voluntarily or because of a court order." 20 C.F.R. § 416.1121(b).⁵

Generally, an SSI beneficiary "has the right to manage his or her own benefits." 20 C.F.R. § 416.601(b)(1). But when "due to a mental or physical condition or due to their youth" the beneficiary is "unable to do so," the federal government may select as representative payee the beneficiary’s "legal guardian or some other person." 20 C.F.R. § 416.601(b)(1)-(2).

III. SSI benefits are not an independent financial resource.

[7, 8] Reviewing the text of Code § 20-108.1(B)(9) with this understanding of the SSI program, we hold that SSI benefits are not an independent financial resource. "When construing a statute, our primary objective is ‘to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent,’ as expressed by the language used in the statute." Wallace v. Commonwealth, 79 Va. App. 455, 461, 896 S.E.2d 384 (2024) (en banc) (quoting Cuccinelli v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 283 Va. 420, 425, 722 S.E.2d 626 (2012)). We must also read the term "independent financial resources" in the context of the broader statutory framework allowing child-support orders. "A statute is not to be construed by singling out a particular phrase." Eberhardt v. Fairfax Cnty. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. Bd. of Trustees, 283 Va. 190, 195, 721 S.E.2d 524 (2012) (quoting Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. Bd. of Cnty. Supervisors, 226 Va. 382, 388, 309 S.E.2d 308 (1983)). Rather, "it is our duty to interpret the several parts of a statute as a consistent and harmonious whole so as to effectuate the legislative goal." Id. at 194-95, 721 S.E.2d 524 (quoting Va. Elec. & Power Co., 226 Va. at 387-88, 309 S.E.2d 308). The statute describes "independent financial resources of the child" as one factor "affecting the obligation, the ability of each party to provide child support, and the best interests of the child." Code § 20-108.1(B). We therefore read the text with the understanding that the child’s need and the parent’s ability to pay are the fundamental driving forces behind every child-support order. See Alwan, 70 Va. App. at 605, 830 S.E.2d 45.

We begin with the plain meaning of the text. See Zinone v. Lee’s Crossing Homeowners Ass’n, 282 Va. 330, 337, 714 S.E.2d 922 (2011). SSI benefits are clearly financial resources...