Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2107 (2026)

Credit for dependent benefits

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(REALLOCATED FROM TITLE 19-A, SECTION 2104)

If a child receives dependent benefits as a result of the obligor parent's disability, any tribunal establishing, reviewing or modifying the child support obligation or debt shall give the obligor parent credit for the dependent benefits paid to the child. [PL 1999, c. 327, §1 (RPR).]

1. Calculation of child support obligation; order. The tribunal shall calculate the obligor's child support obligation and issue a child support order pursuant to the child support guidelines in chapter 63. The obligation may not be reduced by the dependent benefits paid to the child.

[PL 1999, c. 327, §1 (NEW).]

2. Findings; credit for benefits paid. The tribunal shall make the following findings:

A. That the child currently receives dependent benefits as a result of the obligor parent's disability; [PL 1999, c. 327, §1 (NEW).]

B. That the receipt of these benefits satisfied part or all of the obligation; and [PL 1999, c. 327, §1 (NEW).]

C. That the obligor must receive credit against the established obligation for the benefits received. Credit may not exceed the amount of the current obligation for the period for which the benefits are paid. Credit may not be given toward a past or future obligation for dependent benefits that exceed the current obligation. [PL 1999, c. 327, §1 (NEW).]

[PL 1999, c. 327, §1 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

RR 1997, c. 1, §16 (RAL). PL 1999, c. 327, §1 (RPR).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: Wong v. Hawk, 55 A.3d 425 (Me. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wong v. Hawk, 55 A.3d 425 (Me. 2012). · cites it 7× “The magistrate did not consider whether, pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 2107 (2011), Hawk should receive a credit toward his child support obligations based on his daughter’s receipt of the dependent benefit.”

Teele v. West-Harper, 170 A.3d 803 (Me. 2017). · cites it 4× “Teele argues that the court erred by concluding, based on 19-A M.R.S. § 2107 (2016), that it lacked authority to apply a “credit” for the retroactive dependent benefits against child support he had paid while the original child- support order was in effect.”

Young v. Young, 973 A.2d 765 (Me. 2009). · cites it 7× “[¶ 6] In calculating Donald’s theoretical support obligation, the court did not apply 19-A M.R.S. § 2107 (2008), 2 which provides a credit to a disabled obligor parent “for the dependent benefits paid to the child” as a “result of the obligor parent’s disability.”

Dunwoody v. Dunwoody, 155 A.3d 422 (Me. 2017). “19-A M.R.S. § 2107 (2016). [¶ 9] The statute codifies a policy that in each month during which support is ordered, the child will receive the greater of the dependent disability payment or the amount of support ordered by the court.”

Eric A. Teele v. Lisa West-Harper, 2017 ME 196 (Me. 2017). · cites it 3× “Teele argues that the court erred by concluding, based on 19-A M.R.S. § 2107 (2016), that it lacked authority to apply a “credit” for the retroactive dependent benefits against child support he had paid while the original child support order was in effect.”

Valerie R. (Bishop-Martel) Winn v. Jean Martel, 2020 ME 4 (Me. 2020). “See 19-A M.R.S. § 2107 (2018). After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that the mother had stopped paying the aunt any child support after the aunt became the child’s representative payee for the Social Security benefits arising from the father’s disability.”

Teele v. West-Harper, 170 A.3d 803 (Me. 2017). · cites it 4× “Teele argues that the court erred by concluding, based on 19-A M.R.S. § 2107 (2016), that it lacked authority to apply a “credit” for the retroactive dependent benefits against child support he had paid while the original child- support order was in effect.”

Teele v. West-Harper, 170 A.3d 803 (Me. 2017). · cites it 4× “Teele argues that the court erred by concluding, based on 19-A M.R.S. § 2107 (2016), that it lacked authority to apply a “credit” for the retroactive dependent benefits against child support he had paid while the original child- support order was in effect.”

Valerie R. (Bishop-Martel) Winn v. Jean Martel, 2020 ME 4 (Me. 2020). “See 19-A M.R.S. § 2107 (2018). After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that the mother had stopped paying the aunt any child support after the aunt became the child’s representative payee for the Social Security benefits arising from the father’s disability.”

Janice W. Dunwoody v. Steven M. Dunwoody, 2017 ME 21 (Me. 2017). “19-A M.R.S. § 2107 (2016). [¶9] The statute codifies a policy that in each month during which support is ordered, the child will receive the greater of the dependent disability payment or the amount of support ordered by the court.”

Brown v. State of Maine, Dep't of Human Servs. (Me. Super. Ct 2001). “Discussion The key to the appeal lies in interpretation of 19-A M.R.S.A. § 2107, titled “Credit for Dependent Benefits.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2107(1) — 1 case

Young v. Young, 973 A.2d 765 (Me. 2009). “[¶ 6] In calculating Donald’s theoretical support obligation, the court did not apply 19-A M.R.S. § 2107 (2008), 2 which provides a credit to a disabled obligor parent “for the dependent benefits paid to the child” as a “result of the obligor parent’s disability.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 2107(2)(B) — 1 case

Young v. Young, 973 A.2d 765 (Me. 2009). “[¶ 6] In calculating Donald’s theoretical support obligation, the court did not apply 19-A M.R.S. § 2107 (2008), 2 which provides a credit to a disabled obligor parent “for the dependent benefits paid to the child” as a “result of the obligor parent’s disability.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.