It is well established that these
previously-calculated, non-means-tested benefits already " belong to the child," the intended recipient. See: Potter v.
Potter, 169 N.J. Super. 140 (App. Div. 1979); Sheren v. Moseley,
322 N.J. Super. 338 (App. Div. 1999); Diehl v. Diehl, 389 N.J.
Super. 443 (App. Div. 2006); Labrosciano v. Labrosciano, XXX N.J.
Super. XXX (Approved for Publication, copy attached hereto pursuant to R.
1:36-3.) "SSD payments are a substitute for earned income and are thereby
non-means-tested." Burns v. Edwards,
367 N.J.Super. 29 (App. Div. 2004).
Likewise, the Plaintiff is the intended recipient of her share of the
SSD derivative benefits.
"The
benefits are paid to a parent only because the benefits cannot be entrusted to
a minor child. As a result, the benefits
should be paid to the parent better situated to use them to support the children. That parent is the custodial parent." Labrosciano, supra, XXX N.J.
Super. at 13. These
"benefits are intended to meet current needs." Sheren, supra, 322
N.J. Super. at 343-344. The
Diehl Court held that: "a non-custodial
parent is not entitled to a credit
for SSD benefits paid for a period before divorce when the non-custodial parent
had no court-ordered support obligation." Diehl, supra, 398 N.J.Super
at 450-451.
"New
Jersey has a strong public policy requiring parents to support their
children. Daly v. Daly, 21 N.J.
599 (1956). One of the fundamental concepts
in American society is that parents have a moral obligation to support their
children. (See Dunbar v. Dunbar,
190 U.S. 340, 351, 23 S.Ct. 757, 761 (1903)). This obligation has become so self-evident
that the Office of the Inspector General at the Social Security Administration
considers it a crime to convert or waste benefits intended for the support of a
child under 42 U.S.C.A. 1320a-7b, which provides, in pertinent part,
that an individual will be guilty of a crime for "(a) Making or causing to be
made false statements or representations." The statute provides that any
person:
(3)
having knowledge of the occurrence of any event affecting (A) his initial or
continued right to any such
benefit or payment, or (B) the initial or continued right to any such benefit or payment of any other individual in
whose behalf he has applied for or is receiving
such benefit or payment, conceals or fails to disclose such event with an
intent fraudulently to secure such
benefit or payment either in a greater amount or quantity than is due or when no such benefit or
payment is authorized,
(4)
having made application to receive any such benefit or payment for the use and benefit of another and having received
it, knowingly and willfully converts such benefit or payment or any part thereof to a use other than for the use
and benefit of such other person…
Andrew A. Bestafka, Esq.
***PLEASE UPDATE NEW ADDRESS***
The Law Office of Andrew A. Bestafka, LLC
45 Dutch Lane Road
Freehold, New Jersey 07728
Phone: 732-898-2378
Fax: 732-414-4299
[email protected] <
[email protected]>
Our Website <http: bestafkalaw.com="">
Google+ <http: https//plus.google.com/b/110856906344120390057/+bestafkalaw/posts="">
<https:
www.facebook.com/pages/the-law-office-of-andrew-a-bestafka-esq/347540071937356=""> Like us on Facebook
<</https:></http:></http:></
[email protected]>