Child Support Standards Act Formula Should Have Been Used
The Third Department determined Family Court erred in determining the parents’ respective contributions to child support when it used the catchall factor (factor 10, FamCtAct 413 (1)(f)(10)) to deviate from the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) formula because the father had custody of the older child all the time and the younger child every other week. The Third Department determined the CSSA formula should have been applied:
Here, the Support Magistrate stated that he was relying on factor 10, the catch-all provision for “[a]ny other factors the court determines are relevant in each case” (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f] [10]). His stated reason for deviating from the presumptive amount was that the father has physical custody of the older child all of the time and of the younger child every other week, so the Support Magistrate adjusted the amount such that the father would not pay support when both children are with him. This was merely another way of applying the proportional offset method, which would reduce a parent’s child support obligation based upon the amount of time that he or she actually spends with the child … .
The Court of Appeals has rejected this method as impractical, unworkable and contrary to the statute and legislative history … . … While application of the CSSA formula may seem to produce unfair results where, as here, the parties equally share parenting time with a child, “[t]he difficult policy choices inherent in creating an offset formula for shared custody arrangements are better left to the Legislature” … . The costs of providing suitable housing, clothing and food for the children during custodial periods do not qualify as extraordinary expenses so as to justify a deviation from the presumptive amount (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f] [9]…). While there may be circumstances in which a deviation is warranted in situations involving shared parenting time, the Support Magistrate’s articulated reason did not provide an adequate basis for such deviation here… . Matter of Ryan v Ryan. 514954, 3rd Dept 10-17-13