New York Family Law Blog
In Matter of Pudvah v. Pudvah, the Appellate Division, Third Department, addressed whether a family court in New York had the legal authority to confirm a support violation order that was never initiated by a proper petition. The court found that, without a formal violation petition filed under Family Court Act § 453, the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the support violation order against the father was vacated.
Background Facts
The mother and father divorced in Florida in 2014. As part of the divorce judgment, the father was required to pay $84 per month in child support. The father later moved to New York. In 2016, the Florida child support agency requested that the New York Family Court register the support order for enforcement purposes under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The Support Magistrate in New York registered the order in November 2016 and determined that the father owed arrears.
In February 2017, the Support Magistrate issued an order finding the father in willful violation of the support order. The Magistrate recommended a suspended sentence of 30 days. Although the father noted that no violation petition had been filed, he did not formally challenge the order based on jurisdiction. Later, the Schenectady County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a violation petition in an effort to clarify the procedural posture of the case. Despite this, Family Court confirmed the original February 2017 order. The father appealed, arguing that Family Court had no subject matter jurisdiction because a required petition was never filed.
Issue
The issue before the Appellate Division was whether Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction to issue and confirm a support violation order in the absence of a formal violation petition.
Holding
The Appellate Division held that Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the violation order because no violation petition had been filed as required by Family Court Act § 453. Therefore, the court vacated the confirmation of the February 2017 order.
Rationale
The court explained that UIFSA permits out-of-state support orders to be registered and enforced in New York using the same procedures that apply to support orders issued in-state. According to Family Court Act § 580-603(b), once a foreign support order is registered, it is enforceable using the same rules that apply to New York support orders.
However, enforcement of a support order for failure to pay must begin with the filing of a violation petition under Family Court Act § 453. This petition must contain a specific allegation that the respondent failed to comply with a lawful support order. Without this formal step, Family Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with a violation hearing or impose penalties such as incarceration or a suspended sentence.
In this case, the record showed that the February 2017 violation order was issued before any violation petition was filed. The Support Magistrate treated the registration request itself as a “pending enforcement petition,” but that was not enough to meet the statutory requirement. The DSS did file a violation petition at a later point, but that filing did not retroactively validate the prior violation order. The Appellate Division noted that jurisdictional defects cannot be waived and can be raised at any time, even on appeal.
The court cited Matter of Saratoga County Support Collection Unit v. Caudill, 160 A.D.3d 1071, and Matter of Mesick v. Mesick, 71 A.D.2d 737, to support its conclusion. In both cases, the courts held that Family Court cannot decide a support violation case without a properly filed petition. The Appellate Division emphasized that, even though the father did not move to vacate the order on jurisdictional grounds in Family Court, this omission did not prevent him from raising the issue on appeal.
The court further explained that once the DSS filed a new petition, it could have served as the basis for a new proceeding, but it could not fix the jurisdictional problem with the original proceeding. Since the February 2017 order was not based on a valid petition, it was void.
Because the lack of subject matter jurisdiction required the court to vacate the order, the Appellate Division did not reach the father’s other arguments.
Conclusion
In Matter of Pudvah v. Pudvah, the Appellate Division clarified that Family Court must strictly follow statutory procedures when enforcing child support orders, especially when dealing with interstate cases. Without a properly filed violation petition, Family Court lacks jurisdiction to find a parent in violation of a support order. The court vacated the order and confirmed that jurisdictional requirements cannot be waived or corrected after the fact.