Articles Posted in Child Support

In New York, when determining whether to impose child support calculations, the courts will assess, among other things, the parties’ income. In doing so, the court will not only evaluate the parties’ stated income but may also impute income to them based on the evidence of record. This was demonstrated in a recent New York ruling issued in a child support case, in which the court explained the grounds for imputing income to a party. If you need assistance navigating a child support dispute, it is wise to meet with a New York child support lawyer promptly.

Factual Background

It is reported that the parties got married in 1994 and had two children. The wife initiated divorce proceedings in May 2016, leading to a nonjury trial in December 2017 to address various issues such as custody, child support, parental access, equitable distribution, and counsel fees. The trial court imputed an annual income of $72,000 to the husband for the purpose of calculating child support. As a result, the court ordered the husband to pay $1,384.10 per month in basic child support and 66% of the children’s unreimbursed undergraduate college and medical expenses. Subsequently, the court entered a judgment of divorce, which the husband appealed.

The New York courts place great importance on a parent’s duty to financially support their child. As such, if the courts determine that a party neglected to uphold their support obligation, they may choose to impose sanctions on the party. Not all failures to pay child support are sanctionable, though, as demonstrated in a recent New York opinion issued in a matter arising out of a dispute over a father’s financial obligations to his children. If you need assistance with a child support matter, it is in your best interest to contact a knowledgeable New York child support lawyer to assess your rights.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the mother and father shared custody of their three children, and the father had an obligation to pay the mother child support. The father neglected to pay support for an unspecified period of time, and the mother filed a motion for enforcement and for sanctions. The support magistrate determined, among other things, that the father’s failure to pay child support was not willful. He also declined to grant the mother’s request that the court order the father to pay half of one of the children’s private school tuition. The mother appealed.

The Court’s Findings

The appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling. First, the court found that the support magistrate’s finding that the father’s failure to pay child support was not willful was entitled to great deference, as it rested largely on the magistrate’s credibility determinations. Specifically, the magistrate found that the father credibly testified that he was unable to seek regular employment due to his parenting responsibilities. Continue reading

When couples with children divorce, one parent will often bear the burden of paying the other child support. Child support obligations that are instituted when children are young may need to be revisited over time, as changing circumstances may render them inappropriate. Not all changes warrant modifications to support orders, though, as demonstrated in a recent ruling issued in a New York child custody case. If you have questions about your rights and obligations with respect to child support, it is in your best interest to consult a New York child support lawyer to discuss your case.

The History of the Case

Reportedly, the mother and the father were married and had three children together. They divorced in 2017 and entered into a stipulation regarding child support. Pursuant to the stipulation, the father agreed to pay the mother $3,250 in child support each month until December 1, 2020, when his support obligation increased to $4,157. The court incorporated the stipulation into the divorce judgment.

It is alleged that in 2020, the father filed a petition asking the court to make a downward modification of his child support obligation. He argued that a substantial change in circumstances warranted the obligation; namely, his oldest child turned 21 and was emancipated. The mother moved to dismiss the petition. The trial court granted the mother’s motion, and the father appealed. Continue reading

Raising a child is expensive, and few people can afford the cost alone. Thus, in many instances in which parents share child custody, the courts will order one parent to pay child support to the other. Numerous elements are taken into consideration in determining an appropriate monthly support obligation. Recently, a New York court explained how the time each parent actually spends with a child factors into child support decisions in a case in which the father appealed the trial court’s ruling. If you are involved in a dispute over child support, it is prudent to speak to a knowledgeable New York family law lawyer about your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the mother and the father, who had three children, divorced. The father was granted legal custody of the children, and the mother was granted residential custody. The parties entered into a stipulation granting the father parental access with the oldest child at least every other weekend. Regarding the younger two children, he had access Fridays afternoon until after their recreational activities, every other weekend, and every Monday evening until Wednesday morning. The stipulation regarding custody contained a clause, however, that stated that, given the children’s ages, if they did not wish to spend the full amount of time dictated by the stipulation with the father, their wishes should be respected.

Allegedly, the court held a trial to determine economic issues, during which it was noted that only the middle child adhered to the parenting schedule, while the other two children spent no time with the father. The court determined that the mother was entitled to child support, and using the Child Support Standards Act, found that the father was responsible for about 37% of the basic support obligation, subject to a downward deviation. Thus, it ordered the defendant to pay $175 per week in support plus the cost of the children’s extracurricular activities and 37% of the cost of health care. The defendant appealed. Continue reading