Matter of Decillis v. DecillisMatter of Decillis v. Decillis
Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kathryn L. Coward, S.M.), dated February 22, 2016. The order, insofаr as appealed from, after a hearing, (1) directed the father to pay the sum of only $404 in biweekly сhild support for the parties’ child based on, inter alia, income that was imputed to the mother and a credit awarded to the father in the sum of $168, to be applied biweekly, for expenses associated with visitation, and (2) denied those branches of the petition which sought to direct the father to contribute to the costs of private school tuition and expenses and extracurricular activities.
Orderеd that the order is modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provisiоn thereof awarding the father a credit against his child support obligation in the sum of $168, to be appliеd biweekly, for expenses associated with visitation, and substituting therefor a provision awarding the father a credit against his child support obligation in the sum of $33, to be applied biweekly, for expenses associated with visitation, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof directing the father to pay the sum of $404 in biweekly child support for the subject child, and substituting therefor a provision requiring him to pay the sum of $539 in *513 biweekly child support; as so mоdified, the order is affirmed inorar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The parties arе the parents of one child, born in 2003. In June 2015, the mother filed a petition for child support. After a hearing, the Support Magistrate determined that the father’s basic child support obligation would be $572 biweekly. In making that determination, the Support Magistrate imputed annual income of $43,000 to the mother for the purpose of calculating the father’s child support obligation. The Support Magistrate then awarded thе father a biweekly credit against this child support obligation in the sum of $168 to compensate him for the “еxtraordinary” expenses associated with visitation, and directed him to pay child support in the sum of $404 biwеekly. The mother appeals, and we modify.
“When determining a parent’s child support obligation, ‘[a] court need not rely upon a party’s own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated future potential earnings’ ”
(Matter of Abruzzo v Jackson,
Here, the Suрport Magistrate properly imputed income to the mother based upon her prior incomе, her choice to engage in only part-time employment, and her current living arrangement, in which she did nоt pay rent or related housing expenses
(see
Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iv], [v];
Matter of Liling Gao v Ming Min Fan,
However, the Support Magistrate improvidently exercised its
*514
discretion in awarding the father a credit against
his
child support obligation in the sum of $168, to be applied biweekly, ⅛ “extraordinary” expenses associated with visitation, which included the sum of $67 for travel expenses. Pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f), the court must direct the noncustodial parent tо pay his or her pro rata share of the basic child support obligation unless it finds that the pro rata share is “unjust or inappropriate” (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f]), based upon consideration of factors such as “extraordinary expenses incurred by the non-custodial parent in exercising visitation” (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f] [9] [i];
see Matter of Cassano v Cassano,
The Support Mаgistrate did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the petition which sought to direct the father to contribute to the costs of private school tuition and expenses. The record shоwed, inter alia, that the child attended public school while living in Suffolk County, and the parties never agreеd to share in the costs of private school. There is also no specific testimony in the record as to any particular scholastic needs of the child that would justify such an award. Under these circumstances, the Support Magistrate did not err in denying so much of the mother’s petition as sought contributions for private school tuition and expenses
(see Zwickel v Szajer,
Finally, the Support Magistrate did not err in denying that branch of the mоther’s petition which sought to direct the father to contribute to the cost of extracurricular activities (see generally Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [7]).
*515 In light of the foregoing, we need not address the father’s remaining contention.