IN RE KRISTEN TURNOW

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Nos. 2010-08284, (Docket No. F-2349-02).

Attorney(S)

Courten Villar, PLLC, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Dorothy A. Courten of counsel), for appellant. Patricia Blake P.C., East Moriches, N.Y., for respondent. Catherine C. DeSanto, Riverhead, N.Y., attorney for the children.

Judges

Peter B. Skelos
Thomas A. Dickerson
L. Priscilla Hall
Sandra Sgroi

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from a child support proceeding under Family Court Act article 4. The father appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, which, after a hearing, effectively denied his motion to terminate his child support obligation. The father sought termination based on the claim that the parties' two children were constructively emancipated.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the father met his burden of proving that the children were constructively emancipated, thereby justifying termination of his child support obligation.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Family Court Act § 413	Parental responsibility for child support until age 21	Established fundamental public policy that parents must support children until 21.
Matter of Roe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188, 192-193	Parental support obligation until age 21	Reinforced the statutory support obligation.
Matter of Gold v Fisher, 59 AD3d 443, 444	Burden of proof on emancipation; parental obligation	Confirmed that the party asserting emancipation bears the burden of proof; applied to deny emancipation here.
Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97, 109	Doctrine of constructive emancipation for children of employable age who abandon parent	Outlined conditions for constructive emancipation, but court found no abandonment here.
Matter of Burr v Fellner, 73 AD3d 1041, 1041	Constructive emancipation doctrine	Referenced as authority for abandonment standard.
Radin v Radin, 209 AD2d 396, 396	Reluctance to see parent is not abandonment	Applied to reject father's claim that children's reluctance constituted emancipation.
Kordes v Kordes, 70 AD3d 782, 783	Parental responsibility and effect of parent's behavior on relationship	Supported finding that father's behavior caused relationship deterioration, undermining emancipation claim.
Schneider v Schneider, 116 AD2d 714, 715	Burden of proof on party asserting emancipation	Quoted to emphasize burden of proof requirement.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reaffirmed the fundamental public policy that parents must support their children until age 21 under New York law. It explained the doctrine of constructive emancipation, which allows termination of support only if a child of employable age actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and visitation. The court emphasized that mere reluctance to see a parent does not constitute abandonment and that the burden of proving emancipation lies with the party asserting it.

Applying these principles, the court found that the father failed to meet his burden of proof. The record demonstrated that the deterioration in the relationship was primarily due to the father's own conduct, not the children's abandonment. Therefore, the court concluded that the children were not constructively emancipated and upheld the denial of the father's motion to terminate child support.

Holding and Implications

The court affirmed the Family Court's order denying the father's motion to terminate his child support obligation.

The direct effect is that the father remains obligated to pay child support for the two children. The decision adheres to established precedent without creating new legal principles or broader implications beyond the parties involved.

Show full summary ...

In the Matter of KRISTEN TURNOW, Respondent, v. ALBERT STABILE III, Appellant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents are responsible for their children's support until age 21 ( see Family Ct Act § 413; Matter of Roe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188, 192-193; Matter of Gold v Fisher, 59 AD3d 443, 444). Nevertheless, under the doctrine of constructive emancipation, "a child of employable age who actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and visitation" may forfeit any entitlement to support ( Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97, 109; see Matter of Burr v Fellner, 73 AD3d 1041, 1041). However, "[a] child's reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment, relieving the parent of any support obligation" ( Radin v Radin, 209 AD2d 396, 396; see Kordes v Kordes, 70 AD3d 782, 783). Moreover, "`[t]he burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it `"( Matter of Gold v Fisher, 59 AD3d at 444, quoting Schneider v Schneider, 116 AD2d 714, 715).

Here, the Family Court's determination that the father failed to meet his burden of establishing that his children were constructively emancipated is supported by the record. In this regard, the record demonstrates that the father's own behavior was the primary cause of the deterioration in his relationship with both children ( see Kordes v Kordes, 70 AD3d at 783, Matter of Gold v Fisher, 59 AD3d at 444; Radin v Radin, 209 AD2d at 396). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's motion to terminate his child support obligation based on the constructive emancipation of the parties' two children.