Jones v. Stautz

• Decision Date: 28 February 1957
• Citation: 159 N.Y.S.2d 903,5 Misc.2d 185
• Parties: Rosamond JONES, Custodian, on behalf of Ilse Stautz, Petitioner, v. Alfred STAUTZ, Respondent.
• Court: New York Domestic Relations Court

Page 903

159 N.Y.S.2d 903

5 Misc.2d 185

Rosamond JONES, Custodian, on behalf of Ilse Stautz, Petitioner, v. Alfred STAUTZ, Respondent.

Domestic Relations Court of City of New York, Family Court Division, New York County.

Feb. 28, 1957.

Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel of City of New York, New York City (Janet Lewin, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.

Henry Streisfeld, Rockville Centre, for respondent. RUISI, Justice.

This is an application for an order of support made by Rosamond Jones, custodian of Ilse Stautz, on behalf of Ilse Stautz, a child now 15 years of age, born May 16, 1941, against Alfred Stautz, her stepfather.

For the purpose of these proceedings it has been stipulated that the natural mother of Ilse, one Elfreda (Morano) Stautz, married the respondent, Alfred Stautz, on September 3, 1953, by a civil ceremony in Heidelberg, Germany. That at the time of the said marriage the respondent herein knew of the existence of the said child, and the said child thereafter lived with the respondent and his wife, Elfreda Stautz. On December 8, 1956, the said child, Ilse Stautz, was adjudicated as a neglected child, the said petition being against the respondent, Alfred Stautz, in the Children's Court Division of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York. At that time the child was in the household of the respondent. Its mother, Elfreda Stautz, died on November 21, 1956.

The Court of Domestic Relations, Children's Court Division, placed the said child, Ilse Stautz, in the custody of Rosamond Jones, and the said child is now living with the said Rosamond Jones. The natural father of the said child, Peter Beckenbach, was last known to be residing in the City of Heidelberg, Germany. He has not provided for the support of the said child. It is conceded the said child is without means and is liable to become a public charge.

This application is now brought against the stepfather for support.

The respondent moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that his liability for the support of the said child terminated with the death of its mother on November 21, 1956.

At common law a husband was under no obligation to support the children of his wife by a former marriage--Williams v. Hutchinson, 3 N.Y. 312, nor was he under a moral obligation to do so; there being no kinship nor blood relationship. From time to time statutes have been enacted transforming moral obligations so as to extend legal liability for support but these statutes have followed (1) lineal consanguinity and later collateral consanguinity. Such statutes are readily sustained even in retroactive effect, because of the basic element of kinship. A different view should obtain where a statute assumes to create a legal liability of support where no prior moral obligation exists.

The Social Welfare Law, under Section 101, Subdivision 1, provides:

'The husband, wife, father, mother, grandparent, child or grandchild of a recipient of public assistance or care or of a person liable to become in need thereof shall, if of sufficient ability, be responsible for the support of such person. Step-parents shall in like manner be responsible for the support of minor stepchildren'.

Subdivision 5 of Section 101 of the Domestic Relations Court Act reads:

'The stepparent of a child is hereby declared legally chargeable with the support of a step child likely to become a public charge provided it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that such stepparent had knowledge of the child's...