24.03.2013 Views

Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

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!