Oneida Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. ex rel. Christman v. Christman

• Decision Date: 06 February 2015
• Citation: 125 A.D.3d 1409,3 N.Y.S.3d 222,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01099
• Parties: In the Matter of ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, On Behalf of Allan CHRISTMAN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Charles CHRISTMAN, Sr., Respondent–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

?125 A.D.3d 1409
3 N.Y.S.3d 222
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01099

In the Matter of ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, On Behalf of Allan CHRISTMAN, Petitioner–Appellant,
v.
Charles CHRISTMAN, Sr., Respondent–Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Feb. 6, 2015

Reversed.

[3 N.Y.S.3d 223]

Tracy L. Pugliese, Clinton, for Petitioner–Appellant.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, and DeJOSEPH, JJ. MEMORANDUM:

Petitioner appeals from an order denying its objection to the order of the Support Magistrate, which determined that respondent father was relieved of any obligation to support his child because he established that the child was emancipated

[3 N.Y.S.3d 224]

( see generally Matter of Parker v. Stage, 43 N.Y.2d 128, 133–135, 400 N.Y.S.2d 794, 371 N.E.2d 513). We reverse.

It is well established that “ ‘[a] parent is obligated to support his or her child until the age of 21 ( see Family Ct. Act § 413) unless the child becomes emancipated’ ” ( Matter of Cedeno v. Knowlton, 98 A.D.3d 1257, 1257, 951 N.Y.S.2d 412), and that “[t]he Legislature has imposed a statutory duty upon parents to support their children who are welfare recipients in order to save the general public the cost of supporting them” ( Matter of Henry v. Boyd, 99 A.D.2d 382, 387, 473 N.Y.S.2d 892, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 645, 491 N.Y.S.2d 620, 481 N.E.2d 252; see § 415). “[U]nder the doctrine of constructive emancipation, ‘a child of employable age who actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and visitation’ may forfeit any entitlement to support” ( Matter of Burr v. Fellner, 73 A.D.3d 1041, 1041, 900 N.Y.S.2d 656). “[I]f a minor has abandoned a parent as outlined in Matter of Roe v. Doe [29 N.Y.2d 188, 192, 324 N.Y.S.2d 71, 272 N.E.2d 567], that parent is not obligated to reimburse [petitioner] for any public assistance expended for the support of that child” ( Basi v. Basi, 136 A.D.2d 945, 947, 524 N.Y.S.2d 955, lv. dismissed 72 N.Y.2d 952, 533 N.Y.S.2d 59, 529 N.E.2d 427). The burden of proving emancipation is on the party asserting it ( see Matter of Gold v. Fisher, 59 A.D.3d 443, 444, 873 N.Y.S.2d 139; see also Schmitt v. Schmitt, 107 A.D.3d 1529, 1530, 968 N.Y.S.2d 284).

Here, at the time period relevant to the instant support petition, the father was no longer the child's custodial parent when the child became eligible for public assistance. The record establishes that the child had lived with his biological...