You are here: / / FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CHILD WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY EMANCIPATED; THEREFORE...
,

FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CHILD WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY EMANCIPATED; THEREFORE FATHER’S SUPPORT OBLIGATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father did not meet his burden of proof in his attempt to demonstrate the constructive emancipation of the child such that his support obligation should be terminated:

“It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents are responsible for their children’s support until age 21” … . “However, under the doctrine of constructive emancipation, a child of employable age who actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and [parental access] may forfeit any entitlement to support. A child’s mere reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment” … . “[W]here it is the parent who causes a breakdown in communication with his or her child, or has made no serious effort to contact the child and exercise his or her parental access rights, the child will not be deemed to have abandoned the parent” … . “The burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it” … .

Here, contrary to the father’s contention, the evidence adduced at the hearing failed to demonstrate that he made serious efforts to maintain a relationship with the child during the relevant time period, or that the child actively abandoned her relationship with him … . Matter of Rosenkrantz v Rosenkrantz, 2023 NY Slip Op 05609, Second Dept 11-8-23

Practice Point: The proof requirements for constructive emancipation of a child were not met; criteria explained.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ADMITTING LAW-FIRM BUSINESS RECORDS DID NOT INDICATE THE AFFIANT WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE RECORD KEEPING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES OF THE LAW FIRM; THEREFORE THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE RECORDS IN THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY-OWNER HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RECURRING RAINWATER LEAKS; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FORMER APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ARGUE DEFENDANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE TIME-BARRED ENDANGERING-THE-WELFARE-OF-A-CHILD COUNTS; WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK.
Foreclosure Proceeding Can Be Brought by Party Who Did Not Provide Consideration; Tenants By the Entirety Can Mortgage Their Interest in Property
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER, WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE A TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST, SAW WHAT WAS THERE TO BE SEEN (SECOND DEPT). ​

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED UPON FATHER’S... THE “CONSENT TO SEARCH” PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY...