Donnelly v. DonnellyDonnelly v. Donnelly
Petitioner and respondent were married in 1981 and are the parents of four children. In November 2000, petitioner was removed from the family home after being found guilty, following a trial, of neglect based upon abuse of the eldest child, now emancipated. By order of Family Court, respondent retained custody of the children and petitioner was directed to pay child support and was subject to an order of supervision restricting visitation. In November 2002, the parties’ second child, Brandon, moved out of respondent‘s home on his eighteenth birthday and moved in with petitioner. Shortly thereafter, as relevant to this appeal, petitioner commenced this proceeding to modify the child support order, seeking, among other things, child support from respondent for Brandon.
Following a hearing, the Support Magistrate agreed with respondent‘s assertion in opposition that Brandon‘s voluntary abandonment of her home, after failing to comply with the reasonable rules of the household, constituted constructive emancipation and forfeited his right to support from respondent. Family Court issued a written decision which, among other things, affirmed that finding and rejected petitioner‘s objections. On petitioner‘s appeal, we affirm.
As a threshold matter, we reject petitioner‘s contention that the Support Magistrate lacked the authority to determine respondent‘s defense of constructive emancipation. This issue arose in the context of petitioner‘s petition for modification of the existing Family Court child support order and, as such, is
On the merits, under well-established law, a parent‘s obligation to support a child until he or she reaches age 21 (see
Here, there was ample, virtually unrefuted evidence that Brandon‘s decision to depart his mother‘s home was voluntary, prompted by her insistence that he follow entirely legitimate and reasonable household rules and standards of acceptable behavior after having failed to do so for a prolonged period of time (see Matter of Roe v Doe, supra at 194; Matter of Chambers v Chambers, supra at 655). Respondent‘s testimony established that Brandon stole from her, subjected her to acts of violence and verbal abuse, failed to attend school, abused alcohol and drugs, was arrested, barricaded his room and sequestered a girlfriend in his room for days, all in total defiance of respondent‘s reasonable rules and expectations. Respondent testified that, after his departure, she maintained contact with him despite his continued unacceptable behavior, and she wanted and would allow him to return home if he abided by reasonable household rules (see Matter of Chambers v Chambers, supra at 655; Matter of Ontario County Dept. of Social Servs. [Christopher L.] v Gail K., supra at 847-848; cf. Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97, 106-109 [1993]). Having chosen to “deliberately flout” (Matter of Roe v Doe, supra at 193) respondent‘s legitimate mandates and voluntarily abandon home to avoid her parental discipline and control, Brandon has forfeited the right to support from her. We thus discern no basis upon which to disturb Family Court‘s determination in that regard (see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Jones] v Jones-Gamble, 227 AD2d 618, 619 [1996]).
Petitioner‘s remaining claims lack merit.
Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.