Altice, C.J.
This is the second appeal involving the dissolution of the marriage of Mark A. Wilson (Father) and Teresa C. Wilson (Mother). In the first, Father appealed the trial court’s dissolution decree, challenging both the division of marital property and the calculation of his child support obligation for the parties’ adult disabled daughter, Emily. Another panel of this court reversed and remanded on both issues.
On remand, the trial court entered an amended decree, which Father appeals. This time he challenges only the trial court’s determination regarding child support. He contends that his child support obligation of $226 per week should have been offset by Emily’s $840 monthly Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD) benefit. We affirm.
…
The Guidelines do not address the issue at hand – SSD benefits received by a disabled adult child, like Emily, for her own disability. And it makes little sense that the benefits she receives for her own disability must be used to offset Father’s support obligation. This income does not represent benefits received based on the earnings or disability of Father.
In a different context, our Supreme Court adopted a general rule that Social Security retirement payments to children are not available to offset child support to which a child is otherwise entitled…
….
Here, Emily’s SSD payments are entitlements from the federal government that are not intended to be a substitute for Father’s earnings. We agree with the trial court that this income is like that which a child might earn from a part-time job.
…
After Lea, the following commentary was added to Guideline 3(F)… This commentary reflects the broad discretion afforded trial courts in these matters. That is, a trial court may consider the earned income of an incapacitated adult child when apportioning support, but such is not required. We believe this same flexibility should be afforded a trial court when considering the effect, if any, that an incapacitated adult child’s SSD benefits should have in the calculation of a particular support obligation.
Father’s position that the trial court should have offset his support obligation by the full amount of Emily’s SSD benefits is not supported by the Guidelines, analogous caselaw, or common sense.4 And his claim that Emily’s financial needs are fully covered by her SSD benefits is pure folly and ignores the reality that, at the time of the final hearing, Mother and Emily remained financially unable to move out of Mother’s parents’ home. As the trial court observed, giving Father a credit toward his support obligation would significantly reduce the funds available for Emily’s care and effectively transfer most of the monetary burden for Emily’s care to Mother and Mother’s parents. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it considered the circumstances of this case, along with Emily’s SSD benefits, and determined that Father was not entitled to a reduction in his support obligation.
Judgment affirmed.
Weissmann, J. and Kenworthy, J. concur.