 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CHILD SUPPORT CSSA COURT ACT SUPPORT OBLIGATION STATUTE CARE PARENTS MATTER PUBLIC ASSISTANCE NY2D SOCIAL SERVICES LAW STANDARDS FOSTER CARE GUIDELINES HEARING EXAMINER RESIDENTIAL/FOSTER AMOUNT REASON SUPPORT AWARDS LEGISLATURE CALCULATING ACCORDANCE RECIPIENT PROVISIONS DISCRETION AFFIRM SHARED CUSTODY |
2 No. 34
In the Matter of Dutchess County Department of Social Services o/b/o
Colleen Day,
Appellant,
v.
Richard Day et al.,
Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 46
May 3, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Richard A. Ott, for appellant.
No appearance, for respondents.
Greater Upstate Law Project, Inc., amicus curić.
_________________________________________________________________
WESLEY, J.:
This case calls upon us to establish the standard for determining a
parent's support obligations for a child placed in residential or
foster care. We hold that child support obligations in these
circumstances are governed by the guidelines set forth in the Child
Support Standards Act (CSSA) (see, Family Ct Act § 413).
Petitioner Dutchess County Department of Social Services commenced
these proceedings, one as to each parent, seeking reimbursement for
funds expended on behalf of their minor child while she was in
residential care. After a hearing, the Hearing Examiner calculated the
basic child support obligation of each parent pursuant to the CSSA
formula. The Hearing Examiner then found that it was appropriate to
deviate from that statutory amount based upon several factors,
including the parents' need to maintain a home for the child; the
child's weekend and other periodic home visits during the placement;
and the mother's inability to work during the relevant time period due
to back surgery. Orders of support were entered against both parents
in the amount of $3,750 and $625, respectively.
The Department filed objections to the support orders, arguing that
the Hearing Examiner improperly deviated from the CSSA standards by
allowing certain deductions from the support amounts. Family Court
denied the objections, but reasoned that where a child is placed in
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
