You are here: / / Child Support Standards Act Formula Should Have Been Used

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

 

You might also like
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAL HIS 2006 CONVICTION ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT FROM RAISING THAT ISSUE TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 2006 CONVICTION IN THE CONTEXT OF A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
Court Should Not Have Precluded Expert Evidence About the Quality of Representation Received by Indigent Defendants
NEWSPAPER CARRIER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
NON-USE ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ABANDONMENT OF AN EASEMENT, RPAPL 1951 CANNOT BE USED TO RETROACTIVELY EXTINGUISH AN EASEMENT ON SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND.
Employer Reimbursed for Personal Leave Credits Used During Employee’s Disabilty
THE PERIODS OF TIME WHEN CLAIMANT WAS DEEMED TEMPORARILY PERMANENTLY DISABLED AFTER SURGERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COUNTED AGAINST THE 300-WEEK CAP FOR HIS PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQRA RE THE PROPOSED SEWER DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A RESPONSE TO HIS COMPLAINT TO THE TOWN RE THE SEWER DISTRICT (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Subpoena Witness Required Reversal

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Sound Basis for Family Court’s Determination Shared Custody Was Approp... Family Court Properly Assumed Jurisdiction Over California Order