IN THE MATTER OF STEVEN D. ROSE, COMMISSIONER OF OSWEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, &C., APPELLANT, v. KIMBERLY L. MOODY, RESPONDENT.
83 N.Y.2d 65, 629 N.E.2d 378, 607 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1993).
December 20, 1993
4 No. 269 (1993 NY Int. 267)
Decided December 20, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
John McConnell, for Attorney General.
Kevin C. Caraccioli, for Appellant.
Heidi Siegfried, for Respondent.
MFY Legal Services, Inc. et al., amici curiae.
BELLACOSA, J.:
Respondent mother has custody of two of her children and subsists on
Social Services financial aid. Family Court rejected petitioner Oswego
County Social Services Commissioner's objections to the Hearing
Examiner's findings and determination that the respondent mother's
child support obligation for her third, noncustodial child was $0. The
Commissioner and Intervenor Attorney-General of the State of New York
appeal as of right on constitutional grounds from the Appellate
Division's order affirming Family Court. They argue that New York's
Family Court Act § 413(1)(g), which conclusively fixes a minimum $25
per month floor in all cases, is not preemptively nullified by any
conflict with Federal law 42 USC § 667, which mandates a rebuttable
presumption in all such instances. We disagree and affirm the
determination of both lower courts in favor of the respondent indigent
mother.
Where a Federal statute facially clashes with a State statute, the
Federal statute must triumph. New York State's Family Court Act
413(1)(g) creates an irrebuttable presumption imposing, in cases like
this one, a $25 per month floor on all child support obligations up to
an accumulated debt of $500. Thus, it flatly contradicts the enabling
legislation, 42 USC § 667, that commands an opportunity in all cases
to rebut and drop the support award floor to $0, when impoverished
circumstances so dictate.
I.
SNIPPETS:
Heidi Siegfried, for Respondent.
MFY Legal Services, Inc. et al., amici curiae.
Respondent mother has custody of two of her children and subsists on Social Services
Family Court rejected petitioner Oswego County Social Services Commissioner's objections to
The Commissioner and Intervenor Attorney-General of the State of New York appeal as of right
They argue that New York's Family Court Act § 413, which conclusively fixes a minimum $25 per
We disagree and affirm the determination of both lower courts in favor of the respondent
Where a Federal statute facially clashes with a State statute,
Thus, it flatly contradicts the enabling legislation, 42 USC § 667, that commands an
In January 1991, the Oswego County Department of Social Services filed a petition for support
Her basic child support obligation under the formula of the Child Support Standards Act
He further determined that even though $0 is less than the poverty level, application of the
The Hearing Examiner concluded that application of the mandatory minimum monthly award would
They argue that Family Court Act § 413avoids the constitutional preemption conflict of an
The New York implementation opens with a provision that parents with sufficient means or
Also relevant are the financial needs of any children of the noncustodial parent not subject
Since New York otherwise immunizes public assistance recipients from levy and execution of
Contrary to the conclusion of the Appellate Division and the majority here, Section 103 of
First, as in any facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute it must be
|
