Criteria for Reduction or Termination of Father’s Child Support Obligations Not Met/No Showing Wife Interfered with Access to Child/No Showing of Unjustified Abandonment by Child
The Third Department affirmed Family Court’s determination that the father’s child support obligations for his 18-year-old son should not be reduced or terminated. The court described the relevant criteria:
Generally, a parent in this state is obligated to support his or her child until the child turns 21 (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [a]). However, a noncustodial parent’s child support obligation may be suspended where such parent establishes that “the custodial parent unjustifiably frustrat[ed] the noncustodial parent’s right of reasonable access” … . On the record before us, we agree with Family Court’s determination that the father failed to establish that the mother unjustifiably interfered with his visitation. * * *
…[W]e similarly conclude that the record supports a finding that the father’s support obligation should not be terminated based upon the son’s refusal to have contact with him. A child’s right to support payments may be forfeited when he or she is “of employable age and . . . actively abandons the noncustodial parent by, without cause, refusing contact” … . However, the child’s refusal of contact must be “‘totally unjustified'” …, and “where it is the parent who causes a breakdown in communication with his [or her] child, . . . the child will not be deemed to have abandoned the parent” … . Matter of McCloskey v McCloskey, 516342, 3rd Dept 11-21-13