IN RE: Paul Burr (2010)

Submitted-April 30, 2010

DECISION & ORDER

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), dated June 1, 2009, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Kaufman, S.M.), dated March 27, 2009, which, after a hearing, granted his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation only to the extent that it modified his child support obligation for the parties' son.

ORDERED that the order dated June 1, 2009, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents are responsible for their children's support until age 21 (see Family Ct Act § 413;  Matter of Roe v. Doe, 29 N.Y.2d 188, 192-193;  Matter of Gold v. Fisher, 59 AD3d 443, 444).   Nevertheless, under 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 Alice C. v. Bernard G.C., 193 A.D.2d 97, 109;  see Matter of Gold v. Fisher, 59 AD3d at 444;  Family Ct Act § 413).   However, “[a] child's reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment, relieving the parent of any support obligation” (Radin v. Radin, 209 A.D.2d 396, 396).   Children are also emancipated if they become economically independent of their parents through employment, entry into military service, or marriage (see Alice C. v. Bernard G. C., 193 A.D.2d at 105).  “ ‘The burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it’ ” (Matter of Gold v. Fisher, 59 AD3d at 444, quoting Schneider v. Schneider, 116 A.D.2d 714, 715).

Contrary to the father's contention, he failed to meet his burden of establishing that his daughter is emancipated.   The father failed to demonstrate that she abandoned the relationship with him (compare Radin v. Radin, 209 A.D.2d 396 and Matter of Alice C. v. Bernard G.C., 193 A.D.2d at 110 with Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Jones-Gamble, 227 A.D.2d 618, 619 and Matter of Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 240 A.D.2d 908, 909-910).   The father also failed to establish that his daughter withdrew from parental control and supervision (see Matter of Alice C. v. Bernard G.C., 193 A.D.2d at 109).   Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to establish that she was economically independent of her parents (see Matter of Alice C. v. Bernard G. C., 193 A.D.2d at 106).   Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's objections to the Support Magistrate's order denying that branch of his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation which pertained to his child support obligation for the parties' daughter.

Finally, the father failed to rebut the presumption that the application of the guidelines contained in the Child Support Standards Act (see Family Ct Act § 413) yielded the correct amount of child support (see Matter of North Guilford County v Campbell, 305 A.D.2d 686, 687;  Matter of Picciullo v. Collein, 226 A.D.2d 643, 643-644;  Matter of Keay v. Menda, 210 A.D.2d 483;  see e.g. Michael N.G. v. Elsa R., 199 A.D.2d 81;  Matter of Maddox v. Doty, 186 A.D.2d 135).

DILLON, J.P., SANTUCCI, HALL and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court