New York Child Support: Special Situations
Special Cases in Calculating New York Child Support under D.R.L 240 or FCA 413
By J. Douglas Barics
Domestic Relations Law 240
Family Court Act 413
Revised June 2007
For Part one of this article, see New York Basic Child Support
Several common situations arise which often cause confusion in calculating child support. The first is when the parents have joint custody. Second is when when a non custodial parent has more than one child with multiple custodial parents. The third is when one set of parents have multiple children and at least one child lives with each parent. A fourth common case is when parents agree to use a different amount of support which differs from a calculation under the guidelines. Fifth, is child support when one party fails to properly disclose income.
1. CHILD SUPPORT AND JOINT CUSTODY
The child support statute is written in terms of custodial and non custodial parent, and is silent with respect to joint custody. In Bast v Rossoff, the trial court agreed that statutory guidelines apply to joint custody arrangements, but held that the facts of the case required the court to determine child support outside of the statutory percentages and calculated child support under DRL 240 1-b(f). The Court of Appeals held that none of the mandatory steps under the child support statute can be waived by the court, and held that to comply with the statute, a calculation of guideline percentages must be determined, and only then can a deviation from the guidelines can be considered under DRL 240 1-b(f). The court determined that the parent who has the child the majority of the time will be considered the custodial parent for purposes of complying with DRL 240, and the parent who has the child the lesser amount of time is deemed the non custodial parent. This ruling is only to comply with the requirements of DRL 240, and has no bearing on any order of custody. The court in Bast also rejected any adjustment of child support based on the time the child spends with each parent, noting that the legislature considered this is a factor but rejected it when enacting DRL 240 and FCA 413.
Bast v Rossoff dealt with the issue of joint custody, but did not address how child support should be calculated under the statute when the child spends equal time with both parents. The Third Department case of Baraby v Baraby held that in order to comply with the steps under DRL 240, the parent with the greater income shall be deemed the non custodial parent, while the custodial parent shall be the parent with the lesser income. The court continued that a deviation from the guidelines may very well be appropriate, but that such a calculation is required under the holding of Bast v Rossoff and the language of DRL 240.
2. CALCULATING CHILD SUPPORT WHEN THE NON CUSTODIAL PARENT HAS CHILDREN WITH MORE THAN ONE CUSTODIAL PARENT
When one non custodial parent has children with two or more custodial parents, each support case calculated separately, with the non custodial parent deducting any existing support orders from any new support orders. DRL 240 1-b includes child supports as mandatory deductions in determining adjusted gross income. Therefore, the custodial parent who files first will be entitled to support based on the full amount of the non custodial parent's income. A second order of support will be based on the non custodial parent's adjusted gross income, less the amount of the first order.
Parent "A" has two children, one living with Parent "B" and the other with Parent "C." When parent "B" obtains an order of child support, the order will be 17% of parent A's adjusted gross income. Assuming parent "C" obtains an order of support after parent "B," the order will be 17% of parent A's adjusted gross income less the support order involving parent "B."
3. ONE FAMILY AND SPLIT CUSTODY
Sometimes one family will have multiple children with each parent having custody of one or more child. In those cases, child support will be calculated normally for each parent. The parent paying less support will have that amount deducted from the parent paying more support.
Assume three children, with one child living with the mother and two children living with the father. The mother's child support will be based on one child; 17% of the father's adjusted gross income. The father's child support will be based on two children; 25% of the mother's adjusted gross income. Assuming the support due the father is more than the support due the mother, the final result will be a payment from the mother to the father in the amount of 25% of the mother's adjusted gross income less 17% of the father's adjusted gross income.
4. DEVIATING FROM THE GUIDELINES
When child support is not made under the guidelines, the order must contain two provisions pursuant to DRL 240 1-b(f). First, is the amount of child support which the guidelines would have given must be stated in the order. Second, there must be an explicit reason why the guidelines are not being followed. Failure to meet these two requirements can be reversible error, or otherwise make the support order unenforceable by the non custodial parent. (i.e. the non custodial parent cannot rely on a defective agreement to prevent the custodial parent from seeking a new order of support).
5. CALCULATING CHILD SUPPORT WITH FACED WITH HIDDEN OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME
Calculating the proper amount of child support under the guidelines is based on the assumption that both parents have fully disclosed their incomes. Unfortunately, some parents attempt to hide, artificially reduce or otherwise fail to disclose their true income. When this occurs, there are several options available to the other party.
Both parties to a child support proceeding are required to make certain financial disclosure. Mandatory disclosure includes financial affidavits, tax returns, pay stubs and W-2 forms. If either party believes the other party failed to disclose additional income, that party is free to engage in additional discovery for information. This includes an examination before trial (also called a deposition), interrogatories, and a request for documents. In some cases, this type of discovery may lead to additional clues as to actual income. The retention of a private investigator is also an option.
(b) Imputed Income
When a court determines that one party is earning less than they are capable of, such as when a party intentionally reduces his or her income, the court is empowered to impute additional income to that party and base child support on actual earning capacity. When the actual earning capacity is unknown, the court may impute income to a party if the proven expenses are greater than the stated income.
(c) Preclusion orders
In addition to the above, whenever a party fails to disclose required financial information, another penalty the court may impose is to preclude (prohibit) that party from offering any evidence at trial.
(d) Failure to Disclose needs based award of support
DRL 240 1-b(k) and Family Court Act 413(k) gives the court an additional remedy to deal with the failure to disclose. When one side, usually the non custodial parent, defaults or has presented insufficient evidence to determine income, the court may order child support based on the greater of either the needs or the standard of living of the child. In addition, if the income of the non custodial parent is later determined and the guidelines would have given a higher award, the custodial parent may obtain an upwards modification, retroactive to the date of the first petition, without a showing of a change in circumstances.
New York Child Support is continued at Part 3: Child Support Modification.
The article "New York Child Support: Special Situations: Special Cases in Calculating New York Child Support under D.R.L 240 or FCA 413" is provided as a free educational service by J. Douglas Barics, attorney at law, and does not constitute legal advice. Legal advice may only come from a qualified attorney who is familiar with the facts and circumstances of a specific case.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Mr. Barics at email@example.com or (516) 742-2600. For more articles and information, please visit www.jdbar.com.
Copyright © 1998-2011 by J. Douglas Barics, attorney-at-law. All rights reserved.
J. Douglas Barics, Esq. – Divorce, family, matrimonial lawyer in Long Island, New York.