- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Barlow v. Barlow
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from a child support proceeding under Family Court Act article 4. The father, David N. Barlow, petitioned the Family Court of Dutchess County to terminate his child support obligation on the ground of constructive emancipation of the child. After a hearing, the Family Court denied the petition. The father then appealed the denial of his petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the father met his burden to establish that the child was constructively emancipated, thereby terminating his child support obligation.
- Whether the child’s refusal of contact and visitation constituted abandonment sufficient to forfeit entitlement to support under the doctrine of constructive emancipation.
- Whether the breakdown in communication was caused by the child’s abandonment or by the father’s misconduct or failure to exercise visitation rights.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Gansky v. Gansky, 103 A.D.3d 894, 962 N.Y.S.2d 255 | Parents' responsibility to support children until age 21 | Established fundamental public policy supporting child support obligations until age 21 |
| Schulman v. Schulman, 101 A.D.3d 1098, 956 N.Y.S.2d 577 | Burden of proof on party asserting emancipation; child’s reluctance not abandonment; parental causation of breakdown | Reinforced burden on father to prove emancipation and that breakdown was not caused by father |
| Glen L.S. v. Deborah A.S., 89 A.D.3d 856, 932 N.Y.S.2d 177 | Burden of proof on emancipation; parental causation of breakdown | Supported conclusion that child’s refusal was justified due to father’s misconduct |
| Grucci v. Villanti, 108 A.D.3d 626, 969 N.Y.S.2d 493 | Child’s mere reluctance to see parent is not abandonment | Distinguished between abandonment and reluctance to maintain contact |
| Turnow v. Stabile, 84 A.D.3d 1385, 924 N.Y.S.2d 292 | Burden of proof on emancipation; child’s reluctance not abandonment | Supported standard for proving constructive emancipation |
| Dewitt v. Giampietro, 66 A.D.3d 773, 887 N.Y.S.2d 210 | Parental causation of breakdown precludes emancipation | Applied to find father caused breakdown, negating emancipation claim |
| Wiegert v. Wiegert, 267 A.D.2d 620, 699 N.Y.S.2d 597 | Breakdown caused by malfeasance, misconduct, neglect, or abuse | Supported finding that father’s misconduct justified child’s refusal |
| Labanowski v. Labanowski, 49 A.D.3d 1051, 857 N.Y.S.2d 737 | Child’s justified refusal due to parental misconduct not self-emancipation | Confirmed that justified refusal does not terminate support obligation |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by reaffirming New York's fundamental policy that parents must support their children until age 21. The doctrine of constructive emancipation allows termination of support only if a child of employable age actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and visitation. Mere reluctance to see a parent does not constitute abandonment.
The court emphasized that if the parent causes the breakdown in communication—through misconduct or failure to make serious efforts to maintain contact—the child will not be deemed to have abandoned the parent. The burden of proving emancipation rests on the party asserting it.
Applying these principles, the court found that the father failed to meet his burden. The record showed the father caused the communication breakdown by his misconduct toward the mother and child, and that the child's refusal to continue the relationship was justified. Therefore, the constructive emancipation claim was not established, and the child support obligation remained.
Holding and Implications
The court affirmed the Family Court’s order denying the father's petition to terminate his child support obligation on the ground of constructive emancipation, with costs.
The direct effect is that the father remains obligated to pay child support. The decision does not establish new precedent but reinforces existing legal standards regarding constructive emancipation, burden of proof, and parental responsibility in child support cases.
PETER B. SKELOS
Timothy G. Griffin, Bronxville, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas M. Gambino, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for respondent.
Patricia L. Campanaro, Hopewell Junction, N.Y., attorney for the child.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Watson, J.), dated December 4, 2012, which, after a hearing, denied his petition to terminate his child support obligation on the ground of constructive emancipation.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Family Court properly denied the father's petition to terminate his child support obligation on the ground of constructive emancipation. It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents are responsible for their children's support until age 21 ( see Matter of Gansky v. Gansky, 103 A.D.3d 894, 962 N.Y.S.2d 255; Schulman v. Schulman, 101 A.D.3d 1098, 956 N.Y.S.2d 577; Matter of Glen L.S. v. Deborah A.S., 89 A.D.3d 856, 932 N.Y.S.2d 177). However, 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. A child's mere reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment ( see Matter of Grucci v. Villanti, 108 A.D.3d 626, 969 N.Y.S.2d 493; Schulman v. Schulman, 101 A.D.3d 1098, 956 N.Y.S.2d 577; Matter of Turnow v. Stabile, 84 A.D.3d 1385, 924 N.Y.S.2d 292). Furthermore, where it is the parent who causes a breakdown in communication with the child, or has made no serious effort to contact the child and exercise his or her visitation rights, the child will not be deemed to have abandoned the parent ( see Schulman v. Schulman, 101 A.D.3d 1098, 956 N.Y.S.2d 577; Matter of Glen L.S. v. Deborah A.S., 89 A.D.3d 856, 932 N.Y.S.2d 177; Matter of Dewitt v. Giampietro, 66 A.D.3d 773, 887 N.Y.S.2d 210). A breakdown may be caused by conduct such as malfeasance, misconduct, neglect, or abuse ( see Matter of Wiegert v. Wiegert, 267 A.D.2d 620, 699 N.Y.S.2d 597). A child's justified refusal to continue a relationship due to such conduct by a parent will not be considered self-emancipation ( see Labanowski v. Labanowski, 49 A.D.3d 1051, 857 N.Y.S.2d 737). The burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it ( see Schulman v. Schulman, 101 A.D.3d 1098, 956 N.Y.S.2d 577; Matter of Glen L.S. v. Deborah A.S., 89 A.D.3d 856, 932 N.Y.S.2d 177; Matter of Turnow v. Stabile, 84 A.D.3d 1385, 924 N.Y.S.2d 292).
Here, the father failed to satisfy his burden of showing that the subject child had actively abandoned him, such that the child had forfeited any entitlement to support. The record demonstrates that it was the father who caused the breakdown in communication with the child, through his misconduct toward the mother and the child, and that the child justifiably refused to continue the relationship. Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's petition to terminate his child support obligation on the ground of constructive emancipation.
Alert