BLOCKBUSTER CASES
Holterman v. Holterman, 3 N.Y.3d 1, 781 N.Y.S.2d 458 (2004)
The CSSA does not authorize an adjustment to be made in child support by deducting from income the amount to be paid toward a distributive award.
Tompkins
Upon the filing of objections to an order presented by the support collection unit (SCU) to apply a cost-of-living adjustment to a child support order, FCA § 413-a authorizes the family court to adjust a child support order according to the child support guidelines and not merely to decide whether to apply a cost of living adjustment.
Gravlin v. Ruppert, 98 N.Y.2d 1, 743 N.Y.S.2d 773 (2002).
Reiterated the standards for modification of a child support order based on a written agreement, previously established in Brescia (based purely on the needs of the child) and Boden (an unforeseen change in circumstances and a concomitant showing of need), and held that a complete breakdown in the visitation arrangement. which effectively extinguished respondents' support obligation and had been the reason for deviating from the CSSA, constituted an unanticipated change in circumstances that created the need for modification of the child support obligations.
Clara C. v. William L., 96 N.Y.2d 244, 727 N.Y.S.2d 20 (2001).
Established that a family court's perfunctory approval of a “516 paternity compromise agreement,” without any determination as to its adequacy, fails to satisfy the requirements of the statute so that the putative father may not invoke the statute to bar a proceeding for a declaration of paternity and an increased support order. The court specifically did not consider the constitutionality of this statute or pass upon the continuing viability of Bacon v Bacon (46 N.Y.2d 477, 414 N.Y.S.2d 307), decided nearly a quarter-century ago.
Dutchess County Department of Social Services o/b/o Day v. Day, 96 N.Y.2d 149, 726 N.Y.S.2d 54 (2001).
Established that CSSA must be used to determine support from parents even when child is in foster care and it is a governmental unit that is seeking reimbursement for expenditures made to secure that care. Agreed that it might be appropriate to deviate from the statutory amount based on the parent’s need to maintain a home for the child and the child’s periodic visits to the parent’s home.
Bast v. Rossoff, 91 N.Y.2d 723, 675 N.Y.S.2d 19, 697 N.E.2d 1009 (1998).
Reiterates that the court must apply the CSSA in all cases, regardless of the custodial arrangements. After determining the amount in accordance with the formula, the court may then deviate from this amount if it is found to be unjust or inappropriate.
Dox v. Tynon, 90 N.Y.2d 166, 659 N.Y.S.2d 231 (1997).
Establishes that the mere delay in enforcement of a child support order does not amount to an implied waiver of child support.
Graby v. Graby, 87 N.Y.2d 605, 641 N.Y.S.2d 577, rehearing denied, 88 N.Y.2d 875, 645 N.Y.S.2d 449 (1996).
Sets for the method for considering Social Security Disability benefits received by a child. Since this money is for the benefit of the child and does not affect the income of the paying parent, it is impermissible to use the amount of these benefits to offset the noncustodial parent’s child support obligation. The child support amount must be established the ordinary way, through use of the formula, and can be changed only if the court finds it would be unjust or unreasonable.
Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984 (1995).
Sets the standard for finding that a failure to pay child support is willful. Proof of arrears constitutes a prima facie case. The burden is then on the respondent to show that nonpayment was not willful.
Cassano v. Cassano, 85 N.Y.2d 649, 628 N.Y.S.2d 10, 651
N.E.2d 878 (1995).
Established that the Child Support Standards Act shifts the emphasis from “a balancing of the expressed needs of the child and the income available to the parents after expenses” to “the total income available to the parents and the standard of living that should be shared with the child.” Whether the court uses the formula or the variation factors, it must articulate its reasons.
Rose v. Moody, 83 N.Y.2d 65, 607 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1993), cert. denied, 511
It is constitutionally impermissible for the statute (CSSA) to require an order of $25 per month for a person with little or no income. Presumption must be rebuttable.
Commissioner of Social Services o/b/o Wandel v. Segarra, 78 N.Y.2d 220, 573 N.Y.S.2d 56 (1992).
Established that a parent’s duty to support is not abrogated by a child’s receipt of public assistance.
Return to
Program Announcement
Go to next articles in program book
Go to following article in program book available online
Links to other
sites, or links to this site from any other sites, do not imply any endorsement
of, or relationship with, such other sites.
Last updated January
12, 2006