Metz v. Metz, 120 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 86 (NV 12/9/2004)

• Decision Date: 09 December 2004
• Docket Number: No. 41448.,41448.
• Citation: 120 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 86
• Parties: ROBERT BLAIR METZ, Appellant, vs. AMY BETH METZ, Respondent.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Page 1

120 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 86

ROBERT BLAIR METZ, Appellant, vs. AMY BETH METZ, Respondent.

No. 41448.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

December 9, 2004.

Proper person appeal from post-decree district court orders declining to order respondent to pay child support and denying appellant's motion to modify the child custody arrangement. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Scott Jordan, Judge.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Robert Blair Metz, Reno, in Proper Person.

Amy Beth Metz, Reno, in Proper Person.

BEFORE ROSE, MAUPIN and DOUGLAS, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In this proper person appeal, the primary issue is whether a Nevada district court has authority to order a noncustodial parent to pay child support from his or her supplemental security income and/or social security disability benefits. We conclude that under 42 U.S.C. § 407(a), Congress has expressly exempted supplemental security income from child support payments. Thus, a district court is prohibited from utilizing a noncustodial parent's supplemental security income in setting a child support obligation. Congress, however, has waived the exemption with respect to social security disability benefits. Consequently, a district court may consider these benefits in its child support determination.

FACTS

Appellant Robert Metz and respondent Amy Metz were granted a divorce in 1998. They have one child, who is approximately eight years old. Under the divorce decree, the parties were awarded joint legal custody, with Amy having primary physical custody and Robert having weekend visitation. Robert was required to pay $360 in child support per month under the statutory formula. The decree also required Amy, who suffers from seizures and short-term memory loss, to place the child in day care for eight hours each weekday. The parties were instructed to exchange physical custody of the child at the day care facility.

Since the divorce was entered, the parties have fought bitterly over child custody issues. In 1999, the parties stipulated to a change in the child custody arrangement, which was adopted by the district court. Under the new arrangement, Robert would have primary physical custody and Amy would have visitation every other weekend. Amy would also have custody of the child during the month of July. During July, when Amy had custody, Robert would have visitation every other weekend. Amy agreed to pay $100 per month in child support.

In September 2002, Amy, proceeding in proper person, filed a motion to modify the child custody arrangement. Amy contended, among other things, that she could provide the child with a better home environment. Robert, also in proper person, filed an opposition to Amy's motion and a countermotion for child support arrears. The matter was set for a hearing.

In January 2003, before the district court ruled on Amy's September 2002 motion to change custody, Robert filed an ex parte motion for an order to show cause for Amy's alleged failure to pay child support. Robert further asserted that Amy was interfering with his ability to tend to the child's medical needs. Also in January, Robert moved to modify the child custody arrangement. Robert sought sole legal and physical custody.

After a hearing on the parties' motions, the district court entered two orders on April 22, 2003. In one order, the district court, among other things, concluded that because Amy is receiving supplemental security income (SSI) and social security disability benefits (SSD), the court is prohibited from ordering her to pay child support. In the other order, the court denied both parties' motions to modify the child custody arrangement. The order reaffirms the parties' 1999 child custody stipulation, with two changes. Specifically, since the child is no longer enrolled in day care, the custody exchanges must now take place at the child's school, or when the child is not at school, at the Washoe County Sheriff's Department. The order also allows the parents telephone access to the child. Robert timely appeals from both April orders.

DISCUSSION

The child support order

Nevada imposes upon both parents the duty to provide child support.¹ Our state's child support statute authorizes a district court to determine a parent's support obligation based on his or her "gross monthly income," which could include both SSI and SSD benefits.² Although the United States Supreme Court has accorded the states great deference in matters regarding family law, under the Supremacy Clause, a federal statute may preempt a state statute when the two laws conflict.³ Federal law exempts certain social security benefits from legal process. Thus, in the present matter we must determine whether SSI and/or SSD are preempted by federal law from being considered as gross monthly income under Nevada's child support statute. Making this determination requires an understanding of the distinction between SSI and SSD. Each is intended to serve a specific purpose for the recipient.

SSI

As explained by the Indiana Court of Appeals in Cox v. Cox,⁴ "SSI is a federal social welfare program designed to assure that the recipient's income is maintained at a level viewed by Congress as the minimum necessary for the subsistence of that individual." SSI provides benefits to disabled persons, blind persons, and individuals who are 65 or older.⁵ Disabled persons, to be eligible for SSI, must have a medically determinable physical or mental disability and be unable to work because of that disability.⁶ Additionally, a recipient may not have more than $2,000 in financial resources.⁷ Consequently, SSI is a "means-tested" benefit. Government benefits are "means-tested" if eligibility for the benefits is determined based on the recipient's income or resources.⁸ Further, SSI is intended to supplement a recipient's income, not substitute lost income because of a disability.⁹ The recipient is not required to pay into the social security system in order to qualify for SSI benefits.¹⁰ Thus, SSI provides a person with a minimum income and is designed to help poor, needy people.

SSD

SSD, on the other hand, is a disability insurance program that provides benefits for disabled workers.¹¹ SSD benefits are financed from payroll deductions and represent money that an employee has earned during his or her employment, and that the employer has paid for the employee's benefit.¹² Thus, SSD is available based on an employee paying into the social security system during employment. A person is eligible for SSD benefits if certain disability requirements are met and if other criteria based on contributions into the social security retirement system are also met.¹³ SSD is intended to replace lost income when an employee is unable to work after becoming disabled.¹⁴

Having explained the nature of SSI and SSD benefits, we now turn to Nevada's child support statute, to see if these benefits may be considered income used to calculate a parent's monthly support obligation.

Child support statute

NRS 125B.070, Nevada's child support statute, sets forth a support schedule based upon "a parent's gross monthly income." NRS 125B.070(1)(a) defines "gross monthly income" as

the total amount of income received each monthfrom any source of a person who is not self-employedor the gross income from any source of a self-employed person, after deduction of all legitimate business expenses, but without deduction for personal income taxes, contributions for retirement benefits, contributions to a pension or for any other personal expenses.

This court has not addressed the issue of whether, under Nevada's child support statute, social security benefits can be considered gross monthly income for the purpose of calculating a support obligation.

Statutory construction is a question of law.¹⁵ When the language of a statute is expressly clear and unambiguous, the apparent intent must be given effect, as there is no room for construction.¹⁶ If, however, a statutory provision is ambiguous, then this court should attempt to follow the Legislature's intent.¹⁷ To ascertain legislative intent, a court may examine the context and spirit of the statute in question, together with the subject matter and policy involved.¹⁸ Statutes also should be interpreted "in line with what reason and public policy would indicate the legislature intended."¹⁹ In addition, a statute should be read as a whole to give meaning to all of its parts.²⁰ "`No part of a statute should be rendered nugatory, nor any language turned to mere surplusage, if such consequences can properly be avoided.'"²¹ "Statutes with a protective purpose should be liberally construed in order to effectuate the benefits intended to be obtained."²² Finally, when the Legislature makes a substantial change in a statute's language, it indicates a change in the legislative intent.²³

This court has construed the meaning of "gross monthly income" in a prior version of NRS 125B.070. In Rodgers v. Rodgers,²⁴ we considered whether the statutory definition of "gross monthly income" included a parent's community property interest in a new spouse's earnings. At the time, the statute defined "gross monthly income" as "the total amount of income from any source of a wage-earning employee or the gross income from any source of a self-employed person."²⁵ We construed "gross monthly income" to "be limited to the parent's income from employment,"²⁶ reasoning that any other interpretation would render the terms "wage-earning employee" and "self-employed person" nugatory.

The child support statute was revised in 2001, and the term "wage-earning employee" was replaced with "person who is not self-employed."²⁷ The legislative history fails to reveal why the language was changed; the focus of the Assembly hearings was raising the maximum cap for child support.²⁸ The substantial change in the statute's language indicates that the Legislature intended to retreat from the ...