Question Presented
               This office is responding to your request for legal advice regarding whether the agency
                  may garnish the Social Security benefits of Luis to pay for the legal fees incurred
                  by Wendy to secure child support from Luis.
               
               Background
               On December 8, 2011, the New Jersey Superior Court Chancery Division-Family Part for
                  Hudson County issued an Order granting Wendy’s request for child support from Luis
                  .
               
               ANALYSIS
               The Social Security Act (the Act) indicates Social Security benefits are generally
                  not subject to garnishment. 42 U.S.C. § 407(a). The Act does, however, provide an
                  exception to this general rule: Social Security benefits due to any individual shall
                  be subject to legal process brought by an obligee, to enforce the legal obligation
                  of the individual to provide child support. 42 U.S.C. §§ 666(a)(1), (b), 659(a), (h)(1)(A)(ii).
                  The Act defines the term “legal process” as any writ, order, summons, or other similar
                  process in the nature of garnishment issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
                  42 U.S.C. § 659(i)(5); Programs Operations Manual System (POMS) GN 02410.200B. It may include, but is not limited to, an attachment, writ of execution, income execution
                  order, or wage assignment. See POMS GN 02410.200B. The Act also defines the term “child support” as the amounts required to be paid
                  under a judgment, decree, or order issued by a court for the support and maintenance
                  of a child. 42 U.S.C. § 659 (i)(2). The term “child support” under the Act may also
                  include “attorney’s fees.” Id.; see also POMS GN 02410.200E (“child support” may include attorney fees “if expressly made recoverable under a
                  garnishment order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with applicable
                  State or local law”).
               
               Here, the December 8, 2011 Superior Court’s Order awarding child support from Louis
                  results from legal process as defined by the Act and was issued by a court of competent
                  jurisdiction in accordance with New Jersey law. The Order states that Luis “shall
                  be responsible” for child support payments and Wendy’s attorney’s fees “to be paid
                  through Luis’s social security benefits.” The Order directing garnishment of Luis’s
                  Social Security benefits includes attorney’s fees incurred by Wendy in pursuit of
                  child support payments from him and, therefore, falls within the exception of the
                  Act noted above. Accordingly, Wendy may recover attorney’s fees through garnishment
                  of Luis’s Social Security benefits.
               
               Conclusion 
               The Agency may garnish Luis’s benefits pursuant to the December 8, 2011 New Jersey
                  Superior Court Order.
 Mary Ann Sloan
 Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region VIII
               
               By: ___________________________
 Jason P. Peck
               
               Assistant Regional Counsel