Jurgielewicz v. Johnston, N.Y. App. Div., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Attorney(S)

Darren M. Shapiro, Jericho, N.Y., for appellant. Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (John B. Belmonte of counsel), attorney for the child.

Judges

William F. Mastro

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a child support proceeding under Family Court Act Article 4. The father filed a petition seeking to terminate his child support obligation on the grounds of constructive emancipation and parental alienation. The Family Court, Suffolk County, after a hearing, denied the father's petition. The father then appealed from this order dated January 18, 2013.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the father met his burden to establish that the child was constructively emancipated, thereby justifying termination of child support obligations.
Whether the father demonstrated that the custodial parent unjustifiably frustrated or interfered with his visitation rights, constituting parental alienation and warranting suspension of child support.

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
Matter of Gold v. Fisher, 59 A.D.3d 443, 873 N.Y.S.2d 139	Parents are responsible for child support until age 21.	Established fundamental public policy regarding parental support obligations.
Matter of Barlow v. Barlow, 112 A.D.3d 817, 976 N.Y.S.2d 573	Doctrine of constructive emancipation: child of employable age who refuses all contact may forfeit support; mere reluctance is insufficient; parental misconduct can preclude emancipation.	Guided analysis on constructive emancipation and burden of proof.
Matter of Glen L.S. v. Deborah A.S., 89 A.D.3d 856, 932 N.Y.S.2d 177	Parent-caused breakdown in communication negates child's abandonment.	Supported rejection of parental alienation claim where no deliberate frustration by custodial parent was shown.
Matter of Dempsey v. Arreglado, 95 A.D.3d 1388, 943 N.Y.S.2d 657	Child support payments may be suspended if custodial parent unjustifiably frustrates noncustodial parent's reasonable access.	Applied to evaluate parental alienation claim and denial thereof.
Schneider v. Schneider, 116 A.D.2d 714, 498 N.Y.S.2d 23	Burden of proof on party asserting emancipation.	Confirmed that father bore burden to prove child's emancipation.
Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809	Appellate court's power to review evidence is as broad as hearing court's, but factfinder's advantage in witness credibility is recognized.	Supported appellate court's independent review of evidence on emancipation issue.
Foster v. Daigle, 25 A.D.3d 1002, 809 N.Y.S.2d 228	Child of employable age may be constructively emancipated.	Applied to determine child's capacity for emancipation at age 18.
Yokaitis v. Yokaitis, 184 A.D.2d 695, 587 N.Y.S.2d 180	Age of employable capacity relevant to emancipation.	Reinforced legal standard for emancipation based on age.
Matter of Rivera v. Echavarria, 48 A.D.3d 578, 852 N.Y.S.2d 236	Parental alienation requires showing custodial parent frustrated visitation rights.	Applied to deny parental alienation claim due to lack of deliberate interference.
Matter of Hecht v. Hecht, 222 A.D.2d 589, 635 N.Y.S.2d 280	Similar to Rivera; parental alienation and visitation interference principles.	Supported Family Court's denial of parental alienation claim.
Matter of Grucci v. Villanti, 108 A.D.3d 626, 969 N.Y.S.2d 493	Relevant to change in relationship and emancipation analysis.	Used to evaluate substantial change in relationship since stipulation.
Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Meehan, 252 A.D.2d 588, 676 N.Y.S.2d 607	Supports analysis of change in circumstances for emancipation.	Referenced in assessing changes since May 2011 stipulation.
Matter of Labanowski v. Labanowski, 49 A.D.3d 1051, 857 N.Y.S.2d 737	Parental misconduct may justify child's refusal to continue relationship.	Considered in evaluating whether child was self-emancipated.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reaffirming New York's fundamental policy that parents must support their children until age 21. It then explained the doctrine of constructive emancipation, under which a child of employable age who actively abandons a parent by refusing all contact may forfeit support, but mere reluctance is insufficient. The court emphasized that if the parent causes the breakdown in communication through misconduct or neglect, the child is not considered emancipated.

Regarding parental alienation, the court noted that child support may be suspended if the custodial parent unjustifiably frustrates the noncustodial parent's visitation rights. The Family Court had found that the father failed to prove that the mother deliberately interfered with his visitation after a stipulation in May 2011, and this finding was affirmed.

Conversely, the appellate court found that the father met his burden to prove constructive emancipation. The child had reached age 18 and was thus of employable age. The father demonstrated consistent and serious efforts to maintain contact, including calls, messages, offers of counseling, and gifts, all of which were refused or ignored by the child. There was no evidence that the father's conduct caused the deterioration of the relationship. Therefore, the court concluded that the child had constructively emancipated herself, justifying termination of support.

Holding and Implications

The order of the Family Court is reversed, and the father's petition to terminate his child support obligation on the ground of constructive emancipation is granted.

The court's decision directly affects the parties by relieving the father of his child support obligation due to the child's constructive emancipation. The court did not find parental alienation and thus did not suspend support on that ground. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the decision applied established legal principles to the facts presented.

Show full summary ...

In the Matter of Stanley R. JURGIELEWICZ, appellant, v. Kris M. JOHNSTON, respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

Darren M. Shapiro, Jericho, N.Y., for appellant. Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (John B. Belmonte of counsel), attorney for the child.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, PLUMMER E. LOTT, 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, Suffolk County (Loguercio, J.), dated January 18, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied his petition to terminate his child support obligation on the grounds of constructive emancipation and parental alienation.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts, with costs, and the petition is granted.

“It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents are responsible for their children's support until age 21” (Matter of Gold v. Fisher, 59 A.D.3d 443, 444, 873 N.Y.S.2d 139;seeFamily Ct. Act § 413; Matter of Barlow v. Barlow, 112 A.D.3d 817, 976 N.Y.S.2d 573;Matter of Gansky v. Gansky, 103 A.D.3d 894, 895, 962 N.Y.S.2d 255;Schulman v. Schulman, 101 A.D.3d 1098, 1099, 956 N.Y.S.2d 577;Matter of Glen L.S. v. Deborah A.S., 89 A.D.3d 856, 857, 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” (Matter of Barlow v. Barlow, 112 A.D.3d at 818, 976 N.Y.S.2d 573;see Matter of Grucci v. Villanti, 108 A.D.3d 626, 626–627, 969 N.Y.S.2d 493;Schulman v. Schulman, 101 A.D.3d at 1099, 956 N.Y.S.2d 577;Matter of Glen L.S. v. Deborah A.S., 89 A.D.3d at 857, 932 N.Y.S.2d 177;Matter of Turnow v. Stabile, 84 A.D.3d 1385, 1386, 924 N.Y.S.2d 292). “ ‘[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] visitation rights, the child will not be deemed to have abandoned the parent’ ” (Matter of Glen L.S. v. Deborah A.S., 89 A.D.3d at 857, 932 N.Y.S.2d 177, quoting Matter of Alice C. v. Bernard G.C., 193 A.D.2d 97, 109, 602 N.Y.S.2d 623;see Matter of Barlow v. Barlow, 112 A.D.3d 817, 976 N.Y.S.2d 573;Schulman v. Schulman, 101 A.D.3d at 1099, 956 N.Y.S.2d 577; Matter of Dewitt v. Giampietro, 66 A.D.3d 773, 774, 887 N.Y.S.2d 210). Such a breakdown in communication between a parent and a child may result from the parent's “malfeasance, misconduct, neglect, or abuse” (Matter of Barlow v. Barlow, 112 A.D.3d at 818, 976 N.Y.S.2d 573, citing Matter of Wiegert v. Wiegert, 267 A.D.2d 620, 699 N.Y.S.2d 597). Where a child justifiably refuses to continue a relationship with a parent due to such parental conduct, the child will not be deemed to be self-emancipated ( see Matter of Barlow v. Barlow, 112 A.D.3d 817, 976 N.Y.S.2d 573;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” ( Schneider v. Schneider, 116 A.D.2d 714, 715, 498 N.Y.S.2d 23;see Matter of Barlow v. Barlow, 112 A.D.3d 817, 976 N.Y.S.2d 573;Schulman v. Schulman, 101 A.D.3d at 1099, 956 N.Y.S.2d 577;Matter of Glen L.S. v. Deborah A.S., 89 A.D.3d at 857, 932 N.Y.S.2d 177;Matter of Turnow v. Stabile, 84 A.D.3d at 1386, 924 N.Y.S.2d 292).

In addition, with regard to parental alienation, “[c]hild support payments may be suspended where the custodial parent unjustifiably frustrates the noncustodial parent's right of reasonable access” (Matter of Dempsey v. Arreglado, 95 A.D.3d 1388, 1389, 943 N.Y.S.2d 657;see Matter of Rivera v. Echavarria, 48 A.D.3d 578, 578, 852 N.Y.S.2d 236;Matter of Lew v. Sobel, 46 A.D.3d 893, 895, 849 N.Y.S.2d 586;Matter of Hecht v. Hecht, 222 A.D.2d 589, 635 N.Y.S.2d 280).

Here, the Family Court correctly determined that the father failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the mother deliberately frustrated or actively interfered with his visitation rights at any time after the parties entered into a stipulation on May 11, 2011, in which the father agreed to continue to provide child support for the subject child ( see Matter of Rivera v. Echavarria, 48 A.D.3d at 578, 852 N.Y.S.2d 236;Matter of Hecht v. Hecht, 222 A.D.2d 589, 635 N.Y.S.2d 280). Accordingly, the Family Court properly declined to grant the father's petition to terminate his support obligation insofar as it was premised on the ground of parental alienation.

However, contrary to the Family Court's determination, the father met his burden of establishing that the subject child was constructively emancipated. This Court's power to review the evidence is as broad as that of the hearing court, and we may render the judgment that is warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the factfinder had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses ( see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809). Here, the father established that a substantial change had taken place in his relationship with the subject child since the father and mother entered into the May 11, 2011, stipulation ( see generallyFamily Ct. Act § 451[2][a]; Matter of Grucci v. Villanti, 108 A.D.3d 626, 969 N.Y.S.2d 493;Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Meehan, 252 A.D.2d 588, 590, 676 N.Y.S.2d 607). Since then, the subject child had attained the age of 18, rendering her of employable age and, thus, capable of becoming constructively emancipated ( see Foster v. Daigle, 25 A.D.3d 1002, 1004, 809 N.Y.S.2d 228;Yokaitis v. Yokaitis, 184 A.D.2d 695, 695–696, 587 N.Y.S.2d 180). The evidence at the hearing established that the father consistently made a serious effort to maintain a relationship with the subject child during the relevant time period. The testimony adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the father regularly called the subject child at the mother's home, but his calls would either go unanswered, or, according to the mother, the subject child would refuse to speak with him. The father testified that he left messages indicating his willingness to participate in counseling with the subject child, but these offers were not accepted. On special occasions, the father left gifts and cards for the child that the child did not acknowledge. The father also contacted the child's therapist and suggested therapeutic visitation with the child. However, the child refused this offer. In addition to demonstrating the father's serious efforts to maintain a relationship with the child, the evidence demonstrated that, during the relevant period of time, the father's behavior was not a primary cause of the deterioration in his relationship with the subject child. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the father satisfied his burden of demonstrating that the subject child was constructively emancipated, and a finding in the father's favor in connection with this issue is warranted by the facts.

Accordingly, the Family Court should have granted the father's petition to terminate his child support obligation on the ground of constructive emancipation.

Jurgielewicz v. Johnston