Mathias, J.
Jill Bastone (f/k/a Jill Finfrock) (“Mother”) requested that the Porter Superior Court issue a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) ordering that funds in the retirement account of her former husband, Mark Finfrock (“Father”), be applied to satisfy Father’s substantial child support arrearage. After initially granting the request, the trial court rescinded the QDRO and ordered Mother to pay attorney fees to Father. Mother now appeals and argues: (1) that the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is inapplicable to the present case; (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to issue a QDRO; and (3) that the trial court erred by ordering Father’s child support payments to be made to the Indiana State Central Collections Unit (“INSCCU”).
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
….
It is clear that an attorney who regularly engages in consumer debt collection activity, even when that activity consists of litigation, is a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA. Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 299 (1995). However, Mother appears to be correct that the FDCPA is not applicable to “debt” that is the result of a child support arrearage, even if that arrearage has been reduced to a judgment.
….
…Father’s arrearage judgment is based on his parental duty to support his children. It is not a “debt” as defined in the FDCPA. See Mabe, 32 F.3d at 87; Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that child support obligations are not “debts” under the FDCPA); Okoro v. Garner, 21 F. App’x 486, 488 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that child support is not a debt under the FDCPA); Campbell v. Baldwin, 90 F. Supp. 2d 754, 757 (E.D. Tex. 2000) (noting that courts have been unanimous in holding that child support payments are not “debt” as defined by the FDCPA).
Because the trial court’s award of attorney fees to Father was based on perceived violations of the FDCPA, which is inapplicable to the present situation, we agree with Mother that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees based on these perceived violations.
….
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
BAKER, J., and MAY, J., concur.