Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: ERIN J. SMITH, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner father commenced this Family Court Act article 4 proceeding seeking to terminate an order of support with respect to his daughter, who had been released to his custody on a trial basis but remained in legal custody of respondent (see § 1055[b][i][E] ). Respondent opposed the petition, contending that it was entitled to reimbursement for foster care maintenance payments that it had expended on the daughter's behalf during the one-month trial discharge period. After a hearing, the Support Magistrate determined, inter alia, that, given the father's financial resources and the expenses he had incurred as a result of the child residing with him during the trial discharge period, he was entitled to a deviation from the level of child support calculated under the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) (see § 413[1] [f] ), and that it would be “unjust and inappropriate” to require him to pay support during that period. Respondent appeals from an order that denied its objections to the Support Magistrate's order, and we affirm.
When a child is placed in foster care, the child's parent has a continuing obligation to provide financial support (see Social Services Law § 398[6] [d]; Family Ct Act §§ 415, 422). That obligation is governed by the guidelines delineated in the CSSA (see Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. v Day, 96 N.Y.2d 149, 151–155), which apply “even in residential or foster care reimbursement contexts” (id. at 155). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that Family Court properly denied respondent's objections inasmuch as the Support Magistrate properly applied the CSSA guidelines, analyzed the relevant factors and made specific findings on the record concerning why it would be “unjust or inappropriate” to require the father to pay the amount of child support calculated under the CSSA formula (see Family Ct Act § 413[1][f] ).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CAF 16–01476
Decided: April 28, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)