Steuben County Dept. of Social Services on Behalf of Padgett v. James
| Decision Date | 08 March 1991 |
| Citation | 171 A.D.2d 1023,569 N.Y.S.2d 32 |
| Parties | Matter of STEUBEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES on Behalf of Bonnie J. James PADGETT, Respondent, v. Donald I. JAMES, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bradstreet & Madigan by William Madigan, Bath, for appellant.
John Leyden, Bath, for respondent.
Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and DENMAN, PINE, BALIO and LAWTON, JJ.
Petitioner commenced this proceeding for an order of support for the three children of Bonnie Padgett, a recipient of public assistance and medicaid. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Hearing Examiner directed respondent to pay child support determined by application of the child support standards set forth in Family Court Act § 413(1). Respondent objected to the Hearing Examiner's determination, contending that, if required to pay the level of support as ordered, he would be unable to provide the bare necessities for himself and his second family. Family Court, without reviewing the recorded testimony given at the hearing, denied respondent's objections, concluding that the Legislature, in enacting the Child Support Standards Act (L.1989, ch. 567), "did not provide for first born children to be discriminated against because respondent has voluntarily undertaken to support a second family".
Family Court erred in failing to review the testimony presented at the hearing and in deciding that, as a matter of law, respondent's expenses in maintaining himself and his second family were not to be considered in fixing the level of child support for the children of his first marriage. There is a presumption that the standard of support calculated pursuant to Family Court Act § 413(1)(c) is reasonable and appropriate. The presumption may be rebutted, however, by proof that application of the support standard would be unjust or inappropriate (see, Family Ct. Act § 413[1][f]; 4 Foster, Freed & Brandes, Law and the Family-NY, § 2.12 [1990 Supp]; 11C Zett, Kaufman & Kraut, NY Civ Prac, § 67.02[5] [1990 ed]. In considering whether application of the standard would be unjust or inappropriate, the court must consider, among other enumerated factors, respondent's support obligation to a child of a subsequent marriage (see, Family Ct. Act § 413[1][f][8]; 1 Tippins, NY Matrimonial Law and Practice, § 5A:45) and any other relevant factors, one of which is respondent's current debt and expenses in the maintenance of his household (see, Family Ct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mage v. Mage
...this amount was unjust or inappropriate (see Veitch v. Veitch, 6 A.D.3d 1094, 775 N.Y.S.2d 636 ; Matter of Steuben County Dept. of Social Servs. v. James, 171 A.D.2d 1023, 569 N.Y.S.2d 32 ).The Supreme Court should not have awarded the plaintiff arrears for unreimbursed medical and extracur......
-
Rush v. Rush
...resources to adequately support all of the children involved. See for example Matter of Steuben County Department of Social Services v. James, 171 A.D.2d 1023, 569 N.Y.S.2d 32 (4th Dept., 1991); Matter of Commissioner of Social Services v. Michael F., --- Misc.2d ----, 574 N.Y.S.2d 492 (Fam......
-
Susan M. v. Louis N.
...set forth her reason for deviating from the Act (see, Family Ct. Act § 413[1][f][10][g]; Matter of Steuben County Dept. of Social Servs. [Padgett] v. James, 171 A.D.2d 1023, 569 N.Y.S.2d 32) yet failed to specify the manner in which such health care expenses shall be paid (see, Family Ct. A......
-
Smith v. Smith
...Ct. Act § 413[1][f]; Matter of Holmes v. Holmes, supra, at 188, 592 N.Y.S.2d 72; see also, Matter of Steuben County Dept. of Social Servs. [Padgett ] v. James, 171 A.D.2d 1023, 569 N.Y.S.2d 32). Considering the income disparity of the parties, the fact that respondent also pays the children......