Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Alan W. Dillon v. Heather Gilotti-Dillon

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: CL-2025-0546

• Judges: Hanson, J.

• Opinion

• Authorities (23)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (54.8K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Rel: March 20, 2026

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026

---

CL-2025-0546

---

Alan W. Dillon

v.

Heather Gilotti-Dillon

Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court
(DR-24-900048)

HANSON, Judge.

Alan W. Dillon ("the husband") appeals from a judgment entered by

the Baldwin Circuit Court ("the trial court") divorcing him from Heather

Gilotti-Dillon ("the wife"). The sole issue is whether the trial court

properly calculated child support.
CL-2025-0546

Facts and Procedural History

The wife married the husband in 2021. The wife had two children

from her previous marriage to Jonathon Gilotti, who died in 2016. The

husband and the wife had signed a prenuptial agreement before their

marriage.1 The husband adopted the children following their marriage.

On January 12, 2024, the wife filed a complaint seeking a divorce.

She sought custody of the children and child support. On January 15,

2024, the husband filed an answer and a counterclaim for a divorce. The

parties informed the trial court that they had entered into a partial

settlement as to all issues except child support and insurance. They

agreed that the wife would have custody of the children, with the

husband having visitation rights.

On March 24, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on child support

and insurance. At the hearing, counsel for the husband asked for a

deviation from the child-support guidelines under Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud.

Admin., based on Social Security survivor benefits that the children

1The prenuptial agreement was not included in the record. In its
judgment, the trial court stated that the prenuptial agreement dictated
the disposition of the parties' debt, credit-card accounts, bank accounts,
retirement plans, real property, and personal property and addressed
alimony.
2
CL-2025-0546

received as a result of their biological father's death. After hearing

arguments from the parties' counsel, the trial court stated that it was not

inclined to deviate from the child-support guidelines. Subsequently, the

wife testified that the parties lived in Baldwin County, that they wanted

a divorce, and that she agreed with the terms of the partial settlement.

On April 10, 2025, the trial court entered its final judgment

ordering the husband to pay $1,088 per month in child support based on

the child-support guidelines, without including a deviation from those

guidelines. On April 15, 2025, the husband filed a motion to alter,

amend, or vacate the judgment. In his motion, the husband argued, in

pertinent part:

"5. The Court used [the wife's] employment income and
[the husband's] retirement and Veteran's Administration
benefits in order to calculate child support. The guidelines
reflect that [the wife's] income was $6,726 and [the husband's]
income was $6,903 for a combined monthly gross income of
$13,629. [The wife's] share of the income is 49% and [the
husband's] share is 51%. The basic child support obligation is
$2,112 for the two minor children. [The wife] incurs a health
care cost of $50 per month and [the husband] incurs a health
care cost of $30 per month. The total child support obligation
in this case is $2,192.

"6. It is undisputed that [the wife] receives an additional
$4,228 for the support and maintenance of the parties' minor
children from the Social Security Administration.
Additionally, it is undisputed that the additional amount

3
CL-2025-0546

received was not an asset attributable to the [the wife]. [The
husband] argues that [the wife] is unjustly enriched by
exerting complete control over said amount and that he
should be entitled to share in the benefit.

"7. As a result of the Judgment, [the wife] not only
receives the full benefit of the additional amount received
from the Social Security Administration, but she also receives
the full child support without deviation. Said award is
inequitable because [the wife] is no more entitled to receive
the benefit from the Social Security Administration than [the
husband] is. The parties are joint legal custodians and
therefore would be entitled to equally share the benefits
received on behalf of their children.

"8. [The husband] believes that the Court should have
awarded him half of the Social Security Administration
benefit received on behalf of the minor children.
Alternatively, [the husband] believes that the Court should
have deviated from the child support guidelines pursuant to
Rule 32(A)(1)(d) of the Alabama Rules of Judicial
Administration and deducted the Social Security benefit from
the basic child support obligation and the balance be prorated
between the parties in proportion to each part[y's] income.

"9. Rule 32(A)(1)(d) of the Alabama Rules of Judicial
Administration provides that the Court may deviate from the
child support guidelines when there are assets or unearned
income received by or on behalf of the minor children. As
previously stated, [the wife] receives $4,228 for the support
and maintenance of the parties' minor children from the
Social Security Administration.

"10. While it appears as though this issue may be one of
first impression in the State of Alabama, the Alabama Court
of Civil Appeals contemplated the issue in W.R. v C.R., 75 So.
3d 159 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). The issue in W.R. was the
application of an adoption subsidy received on behalf of the

4
CL-2025-0546

children. The appellant cited two cases in its effort to include
the adoption subsidy in the child support guidelines. W.R. v.
C.R., 75 So. 3d 159 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).

"11. The appellant first cited Pasternak v. Pasternak,
310 N.J. Super. 483, 708 A.2d 1235 (Ct. Ch. Div. 1997). The
facts presented in Pasternak are very similar to the facts in
this case. The wife in Pasternak had a child from a prior
marriage. Her former husband died, and the child received
survivor benefits from the Social Security Administration.
The wife later remarried, and the husband adopted the minor
child. When they separated, the issue of the application of the
Social Security benefit arose. The Court held that the benefits
are 'deemed to reduce the marginal cost of supporting the
child and therefore reduces the basic child support obligation
that the parties ultimately share.' Id. The Court further held
that 'the deduction is provided because the receipt of such
benefits reduces the parents' contribution toward the child's
living expenses.' Id. As a result, the Court held that the
survivor benefit must be deemed to reduce the marginal cost
of supporting the child and be deducted from the basic child
support obligation. Id.

"12. The second case cited by the appellant [in W.R. v.
C.R.] was Ward v. Ward, 7 Neb. App. 821, 585 N.W.2d 551
(1998). The facts presented in Ward are also very similar to
the facts presented here. The husband in Ward had a child
from a prior relationship. His former spouse died, and the
child received survivor benefits from the Social Security
Administration. The husband later remarried, and the wife
adopted the minor child. When they divorced, the issue of the
application of the Social Security benefit arose. The Court
held that neither parent has greater claim than the other with
respect to the Social Security benefit. Id. The Court further
held that it is difficult to understand why one parent would
receive the benefit of the entitlement and the other parent
would not. Id. In Ward, the Court found that a 'strict
application of the guidelines will not result in a fair and

5
CL-2025-0546

equitable child support order.' Id. As in Pasternak, the Court
in Ward held that the benefit should be deducted from the
basic child support obligation and the balance be prorated
between the parties in proportion to each parties' income. Id.

"13. The Court in W.R. v. C.R., 75 So. 3d 159 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2011) rejected the appellant's application of the
Pasternak and Ward finding them distinguishable. The Court
held that an adoption subsidy is not a replacement for lost
parental income and therefore would not be included in the
child support calculation. The Court further held that
survivor benefits reasonably would be included in the child
support calculation because they are a substitute for parental
income.

"14. [The husband] argues that the Court should
consider the aforementioned cases and apply the Social
Security benefit in this case as the Courts applied them in
Pasternak and Ward. There is no reason why [the husband]
should not receive the benefit of the entitlement equally with
[the wife]. [The husband] adopted the minor children and
agreed to incur the obligation to support them. At the time of
the adoption, he was aware of the Social Security benefits that
were being paid on the children's behalf. To not take that
benefit into consideration in the calculation of child support
would give [the wife] a windfall to defray her costs of
supporting the parties' children.

"15. In the present case, the total child support
obligation is $2,192. That is the amount that guidelines show
is necessary to support two minor children with parents that
have the income of the parties. [The wife] receives $4,228 on
behalf of the minor children for their support and
maintenance. If the principles of Pasternak and Ward are
applied, the Court would subtract the Social Security benefit
from the total child support obligation leaving a $0 balance. If
they are not applied and child support remains at $1,088, [the

6
CL-2025-0546

wife] receives a windfall that far exceeds what is necessary for
the support and maintenance of the minor children."

On May 8, 2025, the wife filed a response, arguing that the

children's Social Security survivor benefits were not income and should

not be applied as a credit to the husband because the benefits "follow[]"

the minor children. The wife also sought to correct a scrivener's error

with regard to child support. On May 13, 2025, the trial court ordered

the wife's attorney to prepare an amended judgment correcting the

scrivener's error. The trial court denied the husband's requested relief.

On June 4, 2025, the trial court entered an amended judgment correcting

the scrivener's error. On July 11, 2025, the husband filed a notice of

appeal.

Discussion

The husband argues that the trial court should have deviated from

the child-support guidelines and deducted the Social Security survivor

benefits that the two children were receiving as a result of their biological

father's death from the amount of child support he owed. The husband

further argues that the amount of the child-support award resulted in an

inequitable windfall to the children that exceeds what is reasonably

necessary for the support and maintenance of the children.

7
CL-2025-0546

The purpose of the child-support guidelines contained in Rule 32 is

to provide adequate standards for child support, subject to the ability of

their parents to pay, and to make awards more equitable by ensuring

more consistent treatment of persons in similar circumstances.

Comment to Rule 32 (As amended to conform to amendments effective

October 4, 1993).

" 'The application of the Rule 32[, Ala. R. Jud. Admin.,]
child-support guidelines is mandatory.' Cate v. Cate, 370 So.
3d 560, 565 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022); § 30-3-155, Ala. Code 1975.
Determining the amount of a parent's child-support obligation
by applying the guidelines is presumed to result in the correct
amount. Rule 32(A), Ala. R. Jud. Admin. However, the
'presumption may be rebutted if the trial court makes a
finding of fact that, based upon the evidence presented, the
application of the guidelines would be manifestly unjust or
inequitable.' Hutchins v. Hutchins, 637 So. 2d 1371, 1374
(Ala. Civ. App. 1994); Rule 32(A)(ii), Ala. R. Jud. Admin. For
example, when a trial court properly orders joint physical
custody to the parties, payment of child support by one spouse
to the other is not mandatory. McElheny v. Peplinski, 66 So.
3d 274, 282 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). However, ' "any deviation is
improper if it is not justified in writing." ' R.N.P. v. S.W.W.,
389 So. 3d 1215, 1223 (Ala. Civ. App. 2023) (quoting J.M. v.
D.V., 877 So. 2d 623, 630 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003)). ' "A trial
court's failure to follow the guidelines or to make written a
finding that application of the guidelines would be unjust, is
reversible error." ' Robinson v. Robinson, 795 So. 2d 729, 734
(Ala. Civ. App. 2001) (quoting State ex rel. Waites v. Isbell,
718 So. 2d 85, 86 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998))."

Sampson v. Coachman, 414 So. 3d 136, 140 (Ala. Civ. App. 2024).

8
CL-2025-0546

In 2018, the guidelines were amended to add a new subsection

allowing a child-support obligor to receive a credit against his or her

child-support obligation for certain third-party payments made directly

to the payee. Rule 32(B)(9) provides:

"(9) Credit for third-party payment to children.

"(a) Social Security retirement, survivor's, or
disability-insurance benefits, veteran's benefits,
railroad retirement or any other third-party
payments paid for the children based on the
support obligor's earnings record or other
eligibility requirement attributable to the support
obligor shall be credited against that parent's
support obligation, for so long as it is being
received by the support payee, as follows:

"(1) Determine the total child-
support obligation; then

"(2) Determine the monthly
benefit amount that is attributable to
the obligor and that the support
recipient receives for the children and
then subtract that amount from the
total child-support obligation.

"(i) If the children's
obligor-based benefit
exceeds the total support
amount, then no additional
support amount should be
ordered.

9
CL-2025-0546

"(ii) If the children's
obligor-based benefits are
less than the obligor's total
support amount, then the
difference between the
benefits received for the
children and the total
support amount becomes
the ordered obligation.

"(b) The following payments to the children
by a third party shall not be credited toward the
support obligor's child-support obligation:

"(1) Payments that are not based
on the support obligor's earnings record
or other eligibility requirement
attributable to the support obligor;

"(2) Any payments resulting from
the disability of the child;

"(3) Any payment received in
excess of the amount of child support
owed to the child;

"(4) Any payment received by the
child shall not be credited against
arrearages that accrued before the
receipt of the obligor's benefits;

"(5) Social Security income
benefits paid to the child; and

"(6) Adoption subsidy paid to
adoptive parents of a special-needs
child pursuant to section 26-10-20 et
seq. of the Code of Alabama."

10
CL-2025-0546

The Comment to Amendments to Rule 32 Effective June 1, 2018,

provide:

"Subsection (B)(9)(i) is consistent with current Alabama
caselaw. In Goldman v. Goldman, 197 So. 3d 487 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2015), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that the
veteran's disability benefits of the former husband were to be
considered income for purpose of calculating his child-support
obligation. A noncustodial parent cannot be required to pay
child support when Social Security payments received by a
child based on a parent's disability exceeds the guideline
amounts. Self v. Self, 685 So. 2d 732 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
The obligor is also entitled to a credit against his or her
obligation when a child receives benefits based on the obligor's
retirement benefits. Adams v. Adams, 107 So. 3d 194 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2012). Notwithstanding, if the third-party payment
to the child is stopped for any reason, the child support owed
by the obligor remains the amount of the existing child-
support order. For example, if a child is receiving a third-
party payment from Social Security that terminates when the
child reaches the age of 18, the obligation of the obligor to pay
the court-ordered child support will remain in effect until the
child reaches the age of majority.

"The exclusions of credit enumerated in subsection
(B)(9)(ii) reflect current Alabama law. Alabama has
consistently held that credit is not allowed for a benefit a child
receives based on the work history of someone other than the
obligor. See Hebert v. Stephenson, 574 So. 2d 835 (Ala. Civ.
App. 1990). See also the court's discussion in Hebert
regarding child-support credit based on the child's own
disability. 574 So. 2d at 837. Also, the exclusion of credit for
Social Security income benefits in subsection (B)(9)(ii)(5) is
consistent with Lightel v. Myers, 791 So. 2d 955 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2000), holding that a parent should not get credit for the
Social Security income benefits payable to the child as a

11
CL-2025-0546

'supplement to income' for the child based on the child's
disability, as was clarified by the court in Adams v. Adams,
107 So. 3d 194 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012), which held that credit
could be given to a parent whose child received Social Security
retirement benefits based on the parent's work history and,
thus, are a 'substitute income source.' Likewise, the exclusion
of credit for adoption-subsidy pay in subsection (B)(9)(ii)(6) is
consistent with current law because the adoption subsidy is
not a 'substitute income source'; rather, it is supplemental to
the adoptive parents' income. W.R. v. C.R., 75 So. 3d 159 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2011)."

The plain language of Rule 32(B)(9) allowing for a credit for third-

party payments to a child applies to payments stemming from a

relationship with the child-support obligor. Specifically, Rule 32(B)(9)(a)

provides for a credit for the payment to a child of Social Security survivor

benefits "paid for the children based on the support obligor's earnings

record of other eligibility requirement attributable to the support

obligor." Rule 32(B)(9)(b)(1) excludes payments "not based on the support

obligor's earnings record or other eligibility requirements attributable to

the support obligor." Here, the husband argues that he should be given a

credit for benefits paid to the children based on payments in no way

attributable to him. The Social Security survivor benefits received by the

children are attributable solely to their deceased biological father.

12
CL-2025-0546

Our supreme court, in amending Rule 32 to include a credit for

certain third-party payments based on the child-support obligor's

circumstances, could have provided that a credit be applied for any

payment received by a child. Instead, the supreme court determined that

the child-support obligor should benefit from government payments that

result only because of his or her own circumstances. The supreme court

acknowledged in the Comment that Rule 32 was modified in accordance

with Alabama caselaw, citing Goldman v. Goldman, 197 So. 3d 487 (Ala.

Civ. App. 2015); Self v. Self, 685 So. 2d 732 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996); Adams

v. Adams, 107 So. 3d 194 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012); Herbert v. Stephenson,

574 So. 2d 835 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990); Lightel v. Myers, 791 So. 2d 955

(Ala. Civ. App. 2001); and W.R. v. C.R., 75 So. 3d 159 (Ala. Civ. App.

2011).

In Goldman, the former husband (the child-support obligor)

received veteran's disability benefits, and this court held that those

benefits could be considered income for the purposes of calculating child

support. In Self, the children were mentally disabled and received Social

Security income benefits because of their disabilities; they also received

Social Security disability benefits because of their father's disability. On

13
CL-2025-0546

appeal, the father, the noncustodial parent, argued that he should be

allowed a credit against his child-support obligation to the extent of the

Social Security disability benefits received by the children because of his

own disability. This court held that the father should receive full credit

for his child-support obligation based on the payments received by the

children as a result of the father's disability.

In Adams, the noncustodial father sought to modify the child-

support provision of a divorce judgment, asserting that he was entitled

to a reduction of his monthly child-support obligation in the same amount

as the Social Security dependent retirement benefits that his child had

received each month as a result of the father's eligibility for retirement

benefits. This court determined that the decision whether to grant the

father a credit for the dependent retirement benefits was a matter within

the trial court's discretion. After examining the reasons why the trial

court in Adams denied the father a credit, this court reversed the trial

court's judgment, concluding that the stated reasons were invalid and

that the trial court had acted outside its discretion in denying a credit for

the benefits received by the child. Adams, 107 So. 3d at 203. This court

14
CL-2025-0546

determined that the Social Security dependent retirement benefits were

based on the father's work history and were a substitute income source.

In Herbert, this court considered whether to credit the father for

Social Security benefit payments paid to the children based on the

children's stepfather's disability. The father had argued that the Social

Security benefit payments received by the children due to the disability

of their stepfather made the children "self-supporting or supported by a

third party and that, therefore, the payments should operate to relieve

the father of support payments and should be credited against the

arrearage amount that the father owes." Hebert, 574 So. 2d at 836. We

held that the Social Security benefit payments that were derived from

the stepfather's disability did not operate to relieve the father of his duty

of support on the theory that the children are self-supporting or

supported by a third person.

Lightel involved Social Security disability payments made to adult

children who were mentally disabled. The father argued that he was

entitled to offset the amount he was obligated to pay for the disabled

children's living expenses by the amount of Social Security disability

payments the children received each month. This court held that the

15
CL-2025-0546

father was not entitled to an offset because of the children's receipt of

disability payments.

In W.R., this court held that an adoption subsidy could not serve as

a credit against a support-paying spouse's child-support obligation. In

that case, the mother had been awarded custody of the parties' adopted

special-needs children, and the father argued that he should receive a

credit for at least half of the amount of the adoption subsidy the parties

received as a result of adopting the special-needs children. We held that

the adoption subsidy was supplemental to the adoptive parents' income,

not a substitute income source, and could not serve as a credit against

the father's child-support obligation.

Here, the husband has a duty to support the children, and that duty

is not affected by the Social Security survivor benefits received by the

children that are in no way attributable to him. Under the plain

language of Rule 32, because the Social Security survivor benefits

received by the children are not attributable to the husband, he cannot

use those benefits to offset his obligation to the children.

The husband argues that Rule 32(A)(1), which sets out reasons a

court may use for deviating from the child-support guidelines, including

16
CL-2025-0546

a deviation based on "[a]ssets of, or unearned income received by or on

behalf of, a child or children," Rule 32(A)(1)(d), supports his argument

that he is entitled to a deviation. However, the husband's argument

ignores Rule 32(b)(9), which specifically addresses Social Security

benefits provided to a child. Also, Rule 32(A)(1) provides that a deviation

"may" be based on a child's assets. (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, even

if Rule 32(A)(1)(d) applied here, reversal would not be warranted based

on that argument.

The husband relies primarily on Pasternak v. Pasternak, 310 N.J.

Super. 483, 708 A.2d 1235 (Ch. Div. 1997), and Ward v. Ward, 7 Neb.

App. 821, 585 N.W.2d 551 (1998). Both cases were cited in Hamblen v.

Hamblen, 203 Ariz. 342, 54 P.3d 371 (Ct. App. 2002), and this court in

W.R., supra, quoted from Hamblen. In Hamblen, the Arizona appellate

court held that the father was not entitled to a credit against his child-

support obligation for half of the adoption subsidy the parties received

because of their adoption of five children. In Hamblen, the father had

argued that Pasternak and Ward supported his argument that he should

receive a credit for the adoption subsidy. The Arizona appellate court

17
CL-2025-0546

concluded that the adoption subsidy was for the benefit of the children

and not a replacement for lost parental income.

The husband's reliance on Ward and Pasternak is misplaced. In

Pasternak, it was noted that the New Jersey child-support guidelines

"do not distinguish the parental source of the benefit which
reduces the basic child support. … Because a dependency
benefit generated by either party reduces the percentage child
support obligation of both parties, the parental source of the
dependency benefit is ultimately irrelevant to the calculation.
In this case the Social Security dependency benefit paid to the
older child from her deceased parent, … although he is not a
party, must be deemed to reduce the marginal cost of the
children, the basic child support obligation, and ultimately
the percentage child support obligation of both parties."

Pasternak, 310 N.J. Super. at 488-89, 708 A.2d at 1238 (emphasis added).

In contrast, in Alabama, a credit under Rule 32(B)(9) applies only to

payments attributable to the child-support obligor.

Ward is also distinguishable. The child in Ward received Social

Security survivor benefits after her adoptive mother passed away. The

child's adoptive father remarried, and his second wife adopted the child.

When the adoptive father and his second wife divorced, the court in Ward

held that a deviation from the Nebraska child-support guidelines was

justified because, although the benefits received on behalf of the child

were part of the total family income, they were not directly attributable

18
CL-2025-0546

to one of the parents who were parties to the divorce proceedings, and

strict application of the guidelines would not have resulted in a fair and

equitable child-support order.

We note that courts in other jurisdictions addressing whether

Social Security survivor benefits received by a child should be credited

against a living parent's child-support obligation have held that those

benefits cannot be used to offset the child-support obligation. See

Stockman v. Schmidt, 673 S.W.3d 100 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023) (holding that

the Social Security survivor benefits resulting from the father's death

could not be used to offset the mother's and stepfather's duty to support

the son); Gambill v. Gambill, 137 P.3d 685 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (holding

that the adoptive mother and adoptive father were not entitled to a credit

for Social Security survivor benefits received by the children due to the

death of their biological father because the survivor benefits were not

based on the income or means of the adoptive mother or father); Jensen

v. Bowcut, 892 P.2d 1053, 1057 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (holding that the

father was not entitled to an offset from his child-support obligation

based on the child's receipt of Social Security survivor benefits received

as a result of the mother's death because any offset goes to the " 'parent

19
CL-2025-0546

upon whose earning record it is based.' " (citation omitted)); In re

Marriage of Beacham, 19 Kan. App. 2d 271, 867 P.2d 1071 (1994) (holding

that Social Security survivor benefits resulting from biological father's

death were not attributable to adoptive father and, therefore, upon

divorce could not be credited to reduce his child-support obligation);

Truman v. Truman, 642 N.E.2d 230 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (holding that

the father was not entitled to offset his child-support obligation based on

Social Security survivor benefits received by the children as a result of

the mother's death because those benefits were not attributable to the

father); In re Marriage of Foley, 501 N.W.2d 497 (Iowa 1993) (holding

that survivor benefit child received from Social Security Administration

beneficiary of deceased father was not available as a credit against

adoptive parent's child-support obligation); County of Napa v. Combs,

222 Cal. App. 3d 1077, 272 Cal. Rptr. 282 (1990) (holding that the father

of a child in foster care was not entitled to credit toward his child-support

obligation for Social Security survivor benefits received by the county

upon death of child's mother because, while those benefits could be used

for the child's care and support, they could not be used to discharge the

father's obligation to the county for the reasonable costs of the child's

20
CL-2025-0546

support, as the father had a duty to support the child regardless of

whether the child had an estate of her own); Traylor v. Burns, 570 A.2d

1204 (Me. 1990) (holding that, although father, the child-support obligor,

who was unemployed, disabled, and receiving Social Security benefits,

was entitled to a credit based on payments the child received that were

attributable to his disability, the father was not entitled to a credit for

Social Security survivor benefits the child received based on the

stepfather's death); Slaughter v. Slaughter, 313 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Mo. Ct.

App. 1958) (holding that adoptive father was not relieved of his duty to

support the child when the child received benefits due to his biological

father's death while in the armed services).

Regarding the husband's argument that failing to consider the

children's Social Security survivor benefits in the calculation of child

support would result in a windfall to the mother, he fails to cite any

authority in support of this argument. See Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App.

P.; White Sands Grp., L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So. 2d 1042, 1058 (Ala.

2008) ("Rule 28(a)(10)[, Ala. R. App. P.,] requires that arguments in briefs

contain discussions of facts and relevant legal authorities that support

the party's position. If they do not, the arguments are waived.").

21
CL-2025-0546

Conclusion

The husband was not entitled to an offset of his own child-support

obligation just because the children receive Social Security survivor

benefits due to the loss of their biological father. The judgment of the

trial court is therefore affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Moore, P.J., and Fridy and Bowden, JJ., concur.

Edwards, J., concurs in the result, without opinion.

22