AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

CYNTHIA JENKINS, Respondent, v. CAL STEADMAN, Appellant.

There is no merit to respondent's contention that the court should have inquired as to whether he had received and understood the child support standards chart at the support proceeding where he appeared pro se. Family Court Act § 413 (1) (i), inter alia, prohibits a court from entering a final support order unless an unrepresented party receives a copy of the child support standards chart. The court thoroughly instructed respondent regarding his potential liability at the commencement of the proceedings, and respondent did not assert that he had not received a copy of the standards chart. Nor was there a violation of Family Court Act § 433 requiring that a respondent at a support proceeding be advised of his right to counsel. The record shows that respondent twice waived this right when questioned by the court officer and the Hearing Examiner.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

JENKINS v. STEADMAN
(Feb 11, 1992)