Court says parents in New York cannot contract away obligation to support children until age 21

October 3, 4:43 PMAlbany CPS and Family Court ExaminerDaniel Weaver

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Albany CPS and Family Court Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Copyright Wikimedia Commons

In the Matter of Thomas B. v Lydia D. the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ruled on Thursday, October 1, that parents in New York State cannot contract away their obligation to take care of their children until age twenty-one. The issue before the court was whether or not a child's full-time employment by itself constituted emancipation and therefore released the parents from child support obligations. The court ruled that not only must the child's full-time employment be considered when releasing parents from child support obligations, but support magistrates must also consider whether or not the child is financially independent.

In the case of Thomas B. v Lydia D. testimony from the son revealed that even though he had been working full-time in a music store during the time in question, he was not financially independent. While the son was working full-time, part of his financial obligations were being taken care of by his mother, the director of a half-way house and a trust fund.

In New York State, children are considered emancipated if they:

1. Get married

2. Join the military

3. Emancipate themselves by abandoning their parents ("This implies that the child has become independent, that he or she has willfully abandoned the parent by refusing to abide by reasonable instructions or demands of the parent, and that such abandonment was not the result of actions on the part of the parent ...")

4. Become employed full-time and are financially independent.

As the court clearly stated in its decision:

"The determination of economic independence necessarily involves a fact specific inquiry. Thus, even where a child is working but still relies on a parent for significant economic support such as paying for utilities, food, car insurance, medical insurance and the like, the child cannot be considered economically independent, and thus is not emancipated (see e.g. Matter of Fisher v Fritzch, 35 AD3d 1146, 1148 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 810 [2007]; Matter of Reigada v Rinker, 30 AD3d 716, 717 [2006]; Matter of Holscher v Holscher, 4 AD3d 629, 630 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 606 [2004]; Matter of Bogin, 265 AD2d at 781; Matter of Alice C., 193 AD2d at 105-106). This is true even where the child is residing with neither of the parties, so long as the child is still dependent on one of the parties for a significant portion of his or her support."