Articles Posted in Child Support

Published on:

by

A separation agreement in New York is a legal document that outlines the terms and conditions agreed upon by spouses when they decide to live apart. It addresses matters such as division of assets, spousal support, child custody, and visitation. This contractual agreement allows couples to formalize their separation without pursuing immediate divorce proceedings. Once signed, it serves as a binding contract that both parties must adhere to. The separation agreement provides a structured framework for resolving key issues, facilitating a smoother separation process while minimizing potential conflicts and uncertainties.

In Horne v. Horne, a dispute developed over how to interpret the terms of the child support provisions of their separation agreement.

Background Facts

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The case of Movsovich v. Wood, a Family Court Act article 4 proceeding, addresses issues related to child support enforcement. The respondent appeals a decision that addressed the willful violation of a child support order and its consequences.

In New York, prima facie evidence of a willful violation of a child support order arises when there is a presumption that a respondent has sufficient means to support their minor children, and there is evidence demonstrating a failure to pay support as ordered. This presumption is codified n Family Court Act § 454(3)(a). When the party receiving child support presents evidence that the respondent has not complied with the court-ordered support obligations, it creates a prima facie case of willful violation.

Once the custodial parent establishes this prima facie case, the burden shifts to the noncustodial parent (the respondent) to provide credible and competent evidence demonstrating an inability to make the required support payments. The noncustodial parent must present evidence showing reasonable efforts to obtain gainful employment or any other circumstances that might hinder their ability to meet the support obligation.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In the legal landscape of family matters, the case of Kanya J. v. Christopher K. presents a complex narrative involving parental rights, custody modifications, and support obligations. The intricate web of legal proceedings unfolds as both parents grapple for a favorable outcome in the best interests of their child. This analysis delves into the background facts, key issues, the court’s holding, and the broader implications of the decisions rendered by the Family Court.

Background

In the period preceding this legal dispute, Kanya J. and Christopher K., parents to a shared child and co-parented. The initial arrangement, established in a consent order dated March 2017, conferred sole custody upon the mother, while the father was granted a graduated parenting time schedule. However, as subsequent months unfolded, a cascade of developments triggered a sequence of legal actions. The mother, citing apprehensions about the child’s well-being, sought to restrict the father’s parenting time.

by
Posted in: and
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In a case about a child support arrears settlement agreement, the Family Court was asked to determine whether a mutual mistake of fact was sufficient grounds to vacate the settlement agreement and reinstate the full amount of the arrears.

Background

The mother and father are parents of a child born in 1992.  The father was ordered to pay child support through the Support Collection Unit (“SCU”). However, he quickly accumulated an arrears. As of November 13, 2019, when the parties initially appeared before a Support Magistrate, the father had outstanding arrears of $206,055.44 for the child who was then an adult.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In New York, as part of a divorce and child support settlement, parents can be required to contribute to their children’s educational expenses.  The SUNY Cap attempts to limit the required contribution of both parents to the cost of State University of New York (SUNY) tuition. In Pamela T. v. Marc B., a high-conflict divorce with substantial assets, the parents disagreed on each parent’s contribution to college tuition of one of their children, with one parent wanting to limit it to the SUNY cap.

Background

Plaintiff Pamela T. and Defendant Marc B. divorced in 2008. They had two children. The parties had similar annual salaries, each earning just over $100,000 per year. Pamela had approximately $1,200,000 in assets. Marc had approximately $600,000 in assets. Both Pamela and Marc attended private colleges and both have law degrees. Their amended stipulation of settlement addressed child custody and child support.  Pamela was awarded custody and Marc was ordered to pay child support. However, it did not address payment of the children’s college tuition and expenses.

by
Posted in: and
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Generally, child support and custody are two different issues.  Parental access is not based on the amount of child support is paid or whether it is paid on time or is in arrears.  This means that a parent who has been ordered to pay chid support cannot stop paying child support simply because they have not had access to the child. In Usack v. Usack, the Appellate Division was asked to review this general rule in circumstances where the custodial parent intentionally prevents the non-custodial, child support paying parent access.

Background

Plaintiff James Usack and Defendant Linda Usack were married for 20 years and had three children. Linda had a good relationship with the children. After Linda had an affair with another man, James filed for divorce. James told the children about the affair, and from that point on, the children’s relationship with Linda was strained. The Supreme Court of New York granted James custody of the children and ordered Linda to pay child support  a portion of the uninsured medical expenses for all three children.

Published on:

by

In this case, upon divorce, the mother was awarded sole custody of the couple’s child and the father was ordered to pay child support.  After losing his job, the father requested a reduction in child support payments. His request was denied by the Support Magistrate.

In New York the court will consider modification in child support if at least 3 years have passed since the original order, if income of either parent has changed by at least 15%, or if there has been some other change of circumstances. Family Court Act § 451(3)(b).  One reason that a parent’s income would decrease is a loss of job.  There have been instances in which parents have actually quit their jobs or intentionally contributed to the loss of their jobs in order to get out of paying child support. That will not work in New York.  The obligation to pay child support and a child support order will not be modified if a parent job loss was due to his or her own actions.  Furthermore, even if the job loss was involuntary, the parent is required to diligently seek another job.  If not, then the court will not consider a modification of the child support order and in will be imputed.

In Vetrano v. Vetrano, the father petitioned the court for a downward modification, alleging that he was wrongfully terminated from his job and that he was not able to find comparable employment. As a result, his income decreased more than 15% from the date of the original child support order, which was more than three years ago.  In addition, the father alleged that the mother’s income had increased by more than 15%. On its face, the father’s petition presented a prima facie case of changed circumstances such that a downward modification in child support was warranted.  However, the Support Magistrate dismissed the father’s petition concluding that the father had not shown that the loss of his job was not his own fault and that he had been diligently searching for a new job.  When the Family Court denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s decision, the father appealed to the Supreme Court.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In Katz v. Katz, the Appellate Division considered whether a father’s obligation to pay child support could be suspended because the mother interfered with his visitation.

The general rule is that under New York law a noncustodial parent’s access to a child and his or her obligation to pay child support are separate issues.  The court can require a parent to pay child support and also deny the parent visitation.  If a custodial parent refuses to allow the noncustodial parent access to the child, the noncustodial parent should petition the court for custody or visitation.  If there is a custody or visitation order in place and the custodial parent does not allow the noncustodial parent access to the child as required by the order, then the custodial parent is violating a court order.  The aggrieved parent should take up the matter with Family Court.  The remedy is not for the noncustodial parent to simply withhold child support. If the custodial parent is willfully interfering with visitation, upon petition the court may suspend or even cancel the noncustodial parent’s obligation to pay child support.

In Katz v. Katz, upon the couple’s divorce, the mother was awarded physical custody of the couple’s children.  The father was awarded visitation.  The father was also ordered to pay child support in the amount of $10,000 per month.  The father petitioned the court to suspend his obligation to pay child support because the mother was not permitting him to have access to the children as required by the custody order. He also requested a recoupment of the child support that he had already paid.  In support of his petition the father alleged multiple incidents in which the mother interfered with his parenting time and denied him telephone contact with the children.  The mother responded by filing a motion to dismiss.

Published on:

by

In this case the Family Court considered whether interference with visitation was a reason to stop paying child support and whether it would cancel child support arrears. The father was awarded custody of the child and the mother visitation. The mother was also required to pay child support to the father.  She complained that the father was not complying with the visitation schedule.  She argued that she should not have to pay child support if she was not getting access to the child as outlined in the custody order.

The court takes interference with visitation very seriously. When the court issues a custody order, both parents must follow it.  This means that the custodial parent must deliver the child to the non-custodial parent at the time and place agreed upon.  Willful failure to do so is illegal.  If this happens occasionally, the court will likely only chastise the parent and warn him or her to comply with the order.  If it happens repeatedly, the court will view it as willful and take steps to ensure that the order is followed.  One remedy may be suspending the obligation of the non-custodial parent to pay child support.

In Vasquez, the mother filed a petition to hold the father in civil contempt for violating an order of visitation.  As part of the relief sought, the mother requested that her obligation to pay child support be suspended.  She also requested that the court cancel her child support arrears.  While the court noted that it has the discretion to suspend child support payments for violations of an order of visitation, it also made it clear that the court would not have the authority to cancel arrearages.  It further noted that in this case there was no evidence that the father actively interfered with the mother’s visitation.  The evidence showed that at times the child did not want to take advantage of the scheduled visitation, and the father did not force the child.

Published on:

by

KG v G

NY Slip Op 04278

Pursuant to Section 50011 of the Rules, this case was affirmed with costs. Much like the appellate opinion and in consideration of a substantial downward departure from support set out in the Child Support Standards Act, this court can’t say the Supreme Court was in error. Before incorporating the party’s agreement into a judgement, it addressed the provision in question in the framework of a larger agreement and each of the party’s respective finances in a way that secured adequate child support for each child, as the parties originally intended (Domestic Relations Law 240 (1-b[h]). Judges Difiore, Fahey, Rivera, Wilson and Feinman concur. Judge Stien offered his dissent and Judge Garcia agrees.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information