The amount a parent has to pay to support their child should never be tied to the amount either parent earns. I feel It is irrelevant. Especially if there is a situation where there is shared custody. Why is the state forcing people to spend money when a parent does not have to. Did the state force the parent to spend the money while the parents were together? Why should it be done after they split up? Why should expenses rise when income rises?
We should be teaching children how to live modestly and not to obsess over material possessions. Instead it seems as if we are teaching each generation to live paycheck to paycheck. It is truly a tragic situation and needs to be changed immediately.
Court ordered child support and the guidelines are outdated and make no sense in a modern two earner economy.
NEW YORK (Reuters) – A father who has custody of his child the majority of the year was not obligated to make support payments to the child’s mother, despite the vast disparity in their incomes, a divided New York state appeals court ruled Thursday.
The Appellate Division, First Department, found that the Child Support Standards Act of 1989 precluded mother Mara Rubin from receiving child support payments from Anthony Della Salla, the father of her 9-year-old son.
Rubin has no income other than $5,000 a month in pendente lite child support payments from Della Salla, and an additional $1,000 in child support payments from the father of her daughter, the ruling said. Della Salla has roughly $20 million in assets, the ruling said.
The Child Support Standards Act sets out a uniform formula for determining child support payments. The law says that “the court shall order the non-custodial parent to pay” his or her share of that amount.
Based on the “plain language of the Child Support Standards Act, its legislative history, and its interpretation by the Court of Appeals, a custodial parent who has the child a majority of the time cannot be directed to pay child support to a non-custodial parent,” Justice Rosalyn Richter wrote for the majority.
The ruling reversed a 2012 order from Supreme Court Justice Ellen Gesmer in Manhattan.
According to the First Department ruling, Rubin and Della Salla had a son in 2003, although they never married or lived together. When their relationship ended four years later, Rubin had primary custody of the child under an informal arrangement, the ruling said.
PARALLEL CUSTODY
In 2009, Rubin sought sole legal and residential custody, as well as child support payments. Della Salla also asked for primary custody. In 2011, the court granted Della Salla primary custody during the school year and Rubin primary custody during the summer, according to the ruling.
After the custody ruling, Della Salla moved for summary judgment on the child support claim, saying he was the custodial parent and, under the Child Support Standards Act, only non-custodial parents can be ordered to pay child support.
Rubin did not dispute the language of the law, but said that an order denying her child support payments would be “unjust and inappropriate” because of the disparity in income and the fact that she had custody for part of the year, the ruling said.
Gesmer denied Della Salla’s motion, and said the two had “parallel legal custody.” Given the difference in their financial situations, she said she had the discretion to order Della Salla to make support payments because Rubin needed the money to help pay her rent.
Della Salla appealed, and the First Department held that Gesmer had erred. The court pointed out that Della Salla had custody of the child approximately 56 percent of the time.
The panel cited a 1998 Court of Appeals case, Bast v. Rossoff, which found that support cases involving shared custody should be decided by applying the same legal factors as those in other cases that do not, including payment of support by the non-custodial parent.
“Even if we sympathize with the mother’s difficulties in covering the cost of housing in New York City, under the current CSSA, we cannot provide a remedy by giving her child support when she is not, in reality, the custodial parent,” Richter wrote.
Read more HERE
About damn time the courts are finally waking up. This is a move in the right direction and more is needed for equality in these types of cases
I know both the mother, the father, and their relationship. Not only are all the articles of this case presented inaccurately (it really proves how easily it is to slant the truth), the mother has been used by the courts and the father of this child. The father was not present for the birth of the child, did not participate for years, and when he chose not to provide for his son he took the boy away from his mother. Not only did the court not do a proper home check on this boy’s family, it was purchased by the uber rich father. A VERY SAD commentary on our court system. The boy lived with his mother, sister, and grandmother. A very stable, and loving home and environment. The father was and still is the distributive figure in this family. The boy was literally ripped from his mother and his home. He NEVER lived with the father! The courts assigned the child to the father due to the father “buying” the court and lawyers. The father is a thug (putting it mildly). The mother did not care about money, she provided therapy for the boy as he had a few learning disabilities (she asked the father for help to pay), she arranged for the minor surgery the boy needed, and she CARED about his schooling. It is very telling that the sister, her daughter from her ex-husband, turned out more than fine! Her daughter is a loving, caring, and nurturing daughter to both her mother and grandmother. She is a successful actress and college student. She was not financially privileged, yet the mother was able to raise a stellar human. On the other hand, her son, has terrible emotional problems due to be TAKEN OUT OF HIS HOME, raised it by his mother, but the GIRLFRIEND of his father. I might add that the girlfriend was an affair while the boy was actually born. The father got the woman (the girlfriend) pregnant with yet another child (the mother 3O years younger then the father). Why would a court choose a woman who is not the mother of the boy, not a wife to his father, not college educated to actually be the caregiver? The court, this particular judge did NOT AT ALL care about what was in the best interest of this boy. He has been raised by a mafia, old man and his 30 years younger girlfriend. The father is rarely around, as he has many other adult children and his money is why the poor mother (and child) have not been properly together. It is now years later. The mother wisely never speaks poorly of this terrible man to her son. When she has him, she gives him all the love and educational support one could give. She remarried, her husband dotes on this boy and has formed a true father/son relationship. Not the sham that the judge was bought $$$ by. A tragic story. Thankfully the mother has been so strong to endure her son being taken from her, and at EVERY POSSIBILITY she gives and tries to make up for her son’s lost love. It is disgusting our court system! It does not care what is in the children’s best interest as it proclaims, nor is this case a step in the “right” direction for fathers as others believe. The truth is that it tragically took a child from his loving, caring, and providing mother and awarded the boy to an uncaring, vindictive father.