What's happening
Writing a plain-English summary… Track this bill to get it by email.
Why it matters
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Advanced to third reading
- 2nd report cal.
- 1st report cal.615
- Reported and committed to codes
- Referred to children and families
- Referred to rules
Companion bill
The same bill in the other chamber. A bill becomes law when one version passes both houses and the governor signs it, so either number can carry it.
Relates to the child support obligation of indigent parents
Assembly Floor Calendar · Sponsor Daniel O'Donnell
Full text
The text isn't available here yet. Check nysenate.gov.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the domestic relations law and the family court act, in relation to the child support obligation of indigent non-custodial parents
This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of her Family Court Advisory and Rules Committee.
In 1993, the New York State Court of Appeals, in Rose v Moody, 83 NY2d 65 1993 , cert. denied, 511 US 1084 1994 , held subdivision (1-b) of section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law and subdivision one of section 413 of the Family Court Act unconstitutional insofar as these provisions impose an inflexible minimum child support obligation against support obligors whose income would, by virtue of the obligation, fall below the poverty level. The Court ruled that the irrebuttable presumption mandating that an indigent, non-custodial parent be ordered to pay a minimum of $25 per month in child support contravened the Federal Child Support Enforcement Act Social Security Act, Title IV-D §467(b)(2), as amended, 42 USCA §667(b)(2) , thus violating the constitutional principle of Federal preemption. While the effect of the Court's ruling has been to require that support obligors be permitted to rebut the presumption in favor of a minimum obligation of $25 per month, the statutory language has not been conformed accordingly.
Read the full memo (735 words)
Additionally, in cases where the basic child support obligation would reduce the non-custodial parent's income to a level below the self-support reserve but not below the poverty level, both subdivisions provide alternative standards for determining child support, that is, the greater of $50 per month or the difference between the non-custodial parents' income and the self-support reserve. However, both statutes are silent regarding whether separate amounts may also be ordered in such cases for child care, future medical and educational expenses, in accordance with subparagraphs four, five, six and seven of paragraph (c) of both subdivision one of section 413 of the Family Court Act and subdivision (1-b) of section 240 of the Domestic Relations Law. Several cases have, therefore, disallowed the inclusion of any of these expenses as part of the child support order in such circumstances. See Callen v Callen, 287 AD2d 818 3rd Dept 2001 ; In Re Rhianna R., 256 AD2d 1184 4th Dept 1998 (citing Matter of Cary (Mahady) v Megrell, 219 AD2d 334 3rd Dept 1996 , Iv App Dismissed, 88 NY2d 1065 1996 ); Dunbar v. Dunbar, 233 AD2d 922 4th Dept 1996 .
On the advice of our Advisory Committee, we propose this measure to correct these anomalies and to codify the decision in Rose v Moody. This measure would make the presumption in favor of a minimum order of $25 per month rebuttable by a showing that such an order would be unjust or inappropriate, based upon the ten factors applicable to departures from the child support standards. See Domestic Relations Law §240(1-b)(f); Family Court Act §413(1)(f). Family Court and Supreme Court would thus be authorized to order payment of an amount it deems to be just and appropriate. It would eliminate the proviso that " i n no instance shall the court order child support below $25 per month." Finally, the measure would clarify that in cases where imposition of the basic child support obligation would reduce the non-custodial parent's income to an amount below the self-support reserve, but not the poverty level, the Court would be authorized, although not required, to direct payments for child care, educational and health care expenses, as part of its child support order.(1)
This measure, which would take effect 90 days after becoming a law, would have no meaningful fiscal impact on the public Treasury.
2003-04 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY : Senate 3572 (Rath) Passed
2005-06 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY : OCA 2005-53 Assembly 8656 (Rules-Glick) Codes Assembly 8380 (Rules, Glick et at) Codes
2007-08 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY : Senate 4536 (Kruger) Social Services, Children & Families Assembly 8513 (M. of A. O'Donnell) Judiciary
Footnote
(1) The measure does not change the current alternate standards for determining the amount of child support that the Court may order in such cases - that is, the greater of $50 per month or the difference between the non-custodial parent's income and the self-support reserve. Deletion of the current standards in the measure passed by the Legislature in 2002 had prompted a gubernatorial veto. See Governor's Veto Message 2 S.3434-A .
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.