Preview:

[*1]


Decided on December 21, 2010
Family Court, Nassau County

F-xxxxx-08
Donna McCabe, Esq. Attorney for Petitioner Howard Knispel, Esq. Attorney for Respondent Stacy D. Bennett, J.
Procedural History
On July 9, 2008, the Petitioner-daughter, T. M-H, (hereinafter "T" or "the Daughter" or "the child") born June 14, 1990, filed a petition before this Court requesting that the Respondent-Mother, D. H. (hereinafter "D" or "the Mother") provide for her support. On August 8, 2008, the matter was referred to this Court by Support Magistrate Kahlon for determination regarding the issue of constructive emancipation.
On September 2, 2008, the Mother filed a motion to dismiss the Daughter's support petition for two reasons. First, on the grounds of constructive emancipation, alleging that the Daughter has abandoned the Mother's home in Arizona to avoid parental control and that she has refused contact or to have a relationship with her. Second, the Mother argued that Arizona is the "home state" of her daughter and as such, she is emancipated pursuant to Arizona State law, which provides that a child over the age of 18 years is not entitled to child support.
By decision dated December 1, 2008 this Court found that questions of fact existed and therefore denied the motion, and referred the matter to a hearing.
Findings of Fact [*2]
The hearing was held on: May 15, 2009, August 6, 2009, February 9, 2010, April 5, 2010, July 7, 2010 and July 8, 2010.The Court granted the Mother's request to appear telephonically and was represented by Howard Knispel, Esq. The Daughter appeared in person and was appointed 18-b counsel, Donna McCabe, Esq. The Mother requested that she be permitted to appear telephonically, claiming that it was a financial hardship for her to appear before the Court. Without objection from the Daughter, this Court granted the Mother's application.
As the Mother asserted constructive emancipation as a defense to the entry of a support order, she presented her case in chief first. The Mother testified as her first witness and, again, she testified telephonically.The Mother argued that her Daughter totally abandoned the Mother-Daughter relationship, and as a result, she should not be obligated to pay for her support.
By way of background, the Mother testified that she was 19 years old when her Daughter was born. She stated that T 's biological father is R. G. At that time she was attending college and residing with her parents in East Meadow. She stated that three months after T was born, she consented to her father (T. M.) being awarded guardianship over her Daughter so that T "could go on his medical, his health insurance so (she) wouldn't have to work and go to school at the same time."The Order Appointing Guardian of the Person dated September 6, 1990 was admitted into evidence as Respondent's exhibit "A."
The Mother continued to reside with her parents on S Street in East Meadow for the first four years after T was born. Thereafter, the Mother and the child moved into a two bedroom apartment in East Massapequa, with R.H., the Mother's current spouse and T's step-father. They resided there for a short time until they moved into a home which was purchased for D by her parents on L Street in East Meadow, a few blocks away from her parent's home. They resided there for approximately nine years. During that period of time, in 2000, the Mother married R. H. She testified that T and her husband did not get along and discussed briefly an "incident" in May, 2004, which resulted in T moving back to her grandparent's home.
In October, 2004, the Mother sold the home on L Street and moved to Arizona, with her husband. She stated she moved to Arizona because, "New York was too expensive," it "was 2500 miles away from my parents," and that she wanted to get away from her mother and father.The Mother testified that when she first advised T of her plans to move to Arizona, T was willing to go, but later refused to relocate with her Mother and her husband, stating that T told her that she "hated her and her husband." Despite T's refusal to go, the Mother and her husband moved to Arizona in October, 2004.T, fourteen years old at that time, remained in the custody and care of her maternal grandparents in East Meadow.The Mother told the Court that she did not pay child support for T because "nobody asked," and she therefore did not offer.
The Mother stated that she never sought to revoke the Order of Guardianship or take physical custody of T.
In February, 2005 (four months after the Mother moved to Arizona) T moved to Arizona and resided in an apartment in Gilbert, Arizona, with her Mother and her husband until construction on her Mother's home in Buckeye was complete. The Mother testified that while in Arizona, T gave her "trouble" at home and in school. For example, the Mother stated that T refused to obey the household rules, and was "defiant." She stated that T was cutting classes, cursing at home and in school and was using drugs and drinking alcohol. [*3]
As a result of her "bad" behavior, the Mother removed T's privileges, including the use of the home phones, cellular telephones, computers, internet access, and social functions. The Mother explained that as a result of such discipline, in December, 2006, T left the house for the first time (of which there were three such incidents.) The Mother called the school and the authorities resulting in T returning home later that same evening.
T left her Mother's home for the second time in Arizona on December 26, 2006. She stated that T left in the night, without any discussion as to why she was leaving and where she was going.
The Mother called the police and filed a report with the Buckeye Police Department. She located T in early January, when the school advised the Mother that she was in attendance. She attempted to enroll in therapy with her Daughter, but T refused.
The Mother testified that the third time T "ran away" was on January 12, 2007. She stated that her Daughter never told her of her plans to leave, she left during the night while she was sleeping and the Mother had no idea where she was or with whom she was residing. As a result, the Mother called the police and filed a report. She later learned that T had returned to her grandparent's home in New York, where T now lives.
The Mother stated that she continues to reside in Arizona and has lived there since October, 2004. The Mother explained that she never told her Daughter to leave and despite T's "bad" behavior, she loves her Daughter and she is "welcome to come home whenever she wants and she has always been since she left January 12." The Mother does not dispute the fact that T has been residing in New York for a continuos period since January, 2007.
The Mother stated that she has not spoken to her Daughter since she left Arizona in January, 2007, although she sent her cards and letters with no response.
At the conclusion of the Mother's testimony, she rested.
The Petitioner called the following four witnesses during her direct case: Thomas M., Diana M., T. M-H, and D. H.
Thomas M. is the father of the Respondent-Mother, and T's maternal grandfather. Thomas M. testified that in 1990, when T was first born, she and D resided with him, his wife, and son on S Street in East Meadow. He stated that one month after T was born, he applied for and received legal guardianship over T at the Nassau County Family Court. He stated the primary reason for the guardianship order was to provide T with health insurance, since her Mother was only 19 years old, unemployed and attending school.
Thereafter, in 1996 he purchased a home for his daughter and T a few blocks away on L Street. He paid the mortgage on the property and when the house was later sold, he shared the profits with his daughter, D.
In April, 2004, prior to the sale of the L Street home, he recalled an argument between T and the Mother's husband, R.H., which resulted in T moving back into his home. He recalled D telling him that "she didn't want T home anyway, and that it was quiet in the house."
In October, 2004, six months after T came to live with him, D and her husband moved to Arizona, withoutT. Mr. M testified that D did not advise or communicate with him in advance of the move, and D did not make a plan regarding the care or custody of T. D did not offer to pay child support for T and did not even "say goodbye" to him, or her child before she moved. He stated that D never sought to revoke, rescind, modify or remove the Order of Guardianship. He further stated that he has always paid for T 's necessaries. He testified that he has paid for [*4]camps, tutors and horse back riding lessons as well.
Mr. M testified that three months after D moved to Arizona (January, 2005) she came to New York for a family funeral. At that time, he spoke with her about reconciling with T. The family agreed that T would move to Arizona with D. In February, 2005, Mr. M paid for T's plane ticket to Arizona. T remained in Arizona until January, 2007, when she returned to New York to reside with the maternal grandparents. T completed her high school education in the East Meadow School District.
Mr. M stated that since T moved back to New York, (a 2

Download 2010_52375.pdf

New York Law