24.03.2013 Views

Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

164 Judy Reichler<br />

Appendix B<br />

Child Support Blockbuster Cases<br />

Tompkins County Support Collection Unit o/b/o Chamberlin v Chamberlin,<br />

99 NY2d 328 (2003).<br />

Held that, when a cost-of-living adjustment is sought by the SCU and<br />

challenged by one of the parents, Family <strong>Court</strong> Act § 413-a directs the court<br />

to review the order to determine if an adjustment was warranted based on the<br />

child support guidelines, and not merely whether a cost of living adjustment<br />

should be applied. This adjustment was distinct from a modification based<br />

on a change in circumstances, so the parties’ right to seek modification was<br />

not impermissibly expanded.<br />

Gravlin v Ruppert, 98 NY2d 1 (2002).<br />

Reiterated the standards for modification of a child support order based on<br />

a written agreement, previously established in Brescia (based purely on the<br />

needs of the child) and Boden (an unforeseen change in circumstances and<br />

a concomitant showing of need), and held that a complete breakdown in<br />

the visitation arrangement, which effectively extinguished respondents’<br />

support obligation and had been the reason for deviating from the CSSA,<br />

constituted an unanticipated change in circumstances that created the need<br />

for modification of the child support obligations.<br />

Clara C. v William L., 96 NY2d 244 (2001).<br />

Established that a family court’s perfunctory approval of a “516 paternity<br />

compromise agreement,” without any determination as to its adequacy, fails<br />

to satisfy the requirements of the statute so that the putative father may not<br />

invoke the statute to bar a proceeding for a declaration of paternity and an<br />

increased support order. The court specifically did not consider the<br />

constitutionality of this statute or pass upon the continuing viability of<br />

Bacon v Bacon (46 N.Y.2d 477), decided nearly a quarter-century ago.<br />

Dutchess County Department of Social Services o/b/o Day v Day,<br />

96 NY2d 149 (2001).<br />

Established that CSSA must be used to determine support from parents even<br />

when child is in foster care and it is a govenmental unit that is seeking

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!