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
- Committee discharged and committed to rules
- Notice of committee consideration - requested
- Referred to children and families
- Referred to children and families
Full text
The text isn't available here yet. Check nysenate.gov.
Sponsor's memo
BILL NUMBER:S1603
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
Justification
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 (636 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.
This measure corrects these anomalies and codifies 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 "in 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. 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.
Legislative history
First introduced by Senator Montgomery in the 2009 session, advanced to Third Reading in 2010.
Fiscal implications
This measure would have no fiscal impact on the State.
Effective date
This bill would take effect 90 days after becoming a law.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.