Child Support

Published on: December 8, 2019

Visitation Interference May Result in Suspension of Child Support Obligation – Vasquez v. Powell, 111 A.D.3d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

by Stephen Bilkis

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: April 24, 2019

Party Seeks Credit of Child Support for Education Expenses

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: May 1, 2018

Matter of FF v FF

by Stephen Bilkis

2018 NY Slip Op. 02781

April 25, 2018

Decision

Published on: May 15, 2017

Sanders v. Sanders

by Stephen Bilkis

2017 NY Slip Op 03549

May 3, 2017

Decision

Published on: April 9, 2017

Kashman v Kashman

by Stephen Bilkis

2017 NY Slip Op 01343

February 22, 2017

Decision

Published on: March 14, 2017

Court Rules on a Sister State Divorce Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the enforcement of a sister-state divorce judgment, with respect to arrears in alimony and support payments, pursuant to the ‘Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act’ (article 54 of the CPLR) brought before the Supreme Court, Special Term.

Sometime in Junuary 1973, the plaintiff-wife commenced an action for divorce in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut where she was then living and has continued to reside with her two minor children. On 16 April 1973, while the action was pending, the parties executed a separation agreement – semimonthly payments to the plaintiff for alimony and child support, among others. Thereafter, the plaintiff was granted a judgment of absolute divorce by the Connecticut court, specifically incorporating the terms of the separation agreement, the agreement surviving and not merging into the decree.

Defendant resided in Manhattan when the separation agreement was executed, and in Brooklyn when the divorce judgment was granted. There is no question of the defendant appearing in and being represented by counsel in the divorce action. Defendant currently lives in Brooklyn and is a practicing veterinarian.

Published on: March 12, 2017

Bitic v Bitic

by Stephen Bilkis

2017 NY Slip Op 01529

March 1, 2017

The appellate court affirms the judgment.

Published on: August 12, 2016

Court Decides Authority of Probation Officers

by Stephen Bilkis

In this proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, the petitioners, Probation Officers with permanent status in the Nassau County Probation Department, question the authority of the respondent, as the State Administrator of the Judicial Conference of the State of New York to exercise jurisdiction over the examinations for positions in the Probation Department and the reasonableness of the eligibility requirements fixed by him for the promotion examination that was to be conducted on November 18, 1967 for the position of Supervising Probation Officer.

Specifically, petitioners urge: that the Nassau County Probation Department is not a part of the unified court system of the State of New York; that the reduction in eligibility requirements for candidates from those specified in Exhibit B (Nassau County Civil Service Commission notice of examination dated December 15, 1962) to those specified in Exhibit A (announcement for written test on November 18, 1967 of Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference) so that persons with less experience and training would be eligible, would result in placing supervision in the hands of persons who were not qualified, and would increase from 36 to 80 the number of probation officers eligible to take the examination.

Examination of the papers submitted and of the law satisfied the Court that the Administrative Board has jurisdiction over the subject matter and that it was not unreasonable for it, through its administrator, to adopt the requirements for the position as revealed in Exhibit A.

Published on: January 2, 2016

Court Hears Case Regarding Domestic Relations Law

by Stephen Bilkis

This court has before it objections to the decision and order of Hearing Examiner Miklitsch dated April 4, 1994. The petitioner, represented by the County Attorney of Rockland County, objects to the dismissal of her petition brought under Article 3-A of the Domestic Relations Law which sought enforcement of a Kings County Family Court order of support and collection of arrears.

On January 24, 1994 the petitioner, Marsha Dow, filed with this court a petition under Article 3-A of the Domestic Relations Law of the State of New York (Uniform Support of Dependents Law [USDL]. Petitioner was a resident of Queens County, New York. Consequently, the clerk of the Queens County Family Court forwarded the petition, along with a certificate signed by a judge of that county, to the Rockland County Family Court wherein the respondent resides. On March 8, 1994 the matter appeared on the calendar of the hearing examiner of this court. Petitioner was represented by the office of the Rockland County Attorney and the respondent was represented by private counsel. The hearing examiner dismissed the petition on that date and a formal order was signed on April 4, 1994. In said order, the hearing examiner stated as the reason for the dismissal, a New York order is not a foreign order under statute. The petitioner has objected to this determination. Respondent has not interposed a rebuttal.

The issue to be decided is whether a petitioner who is a resident or domiciliary of one county of the State of New York can maintain a proceeding under Article 3-A of the Domestic Relations Law to enforce the terms of a New York State order of child support against a respondent who is a resident or domiciliary of another county of the State of New York.

Published on: October 31, 2014

Court Hears Argument in Child Support Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, as denied his objections to stated portions of an order of the same court which, after a hearing, inter alia, fixed the father’s child support arrears in the sum of $20,046.76 and awarded the mother counsel fees in the sum of $5,000.

“In reviewing a determination of the Family Court, deference should be given to the credibility determinations of the Support Magistrate, who was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses”.