Anna O’Connor is the respondent and James G. Curcio is the appellant in this case.
The father is appealing to recover child support payments.
The issue became whether or not child support payments that are due can be waived because of an order of judgment. As long as the obligation to make those payments hasn’t occurred, they can be waived.
In this case, Thomas B. is the respondent and Lydia D. is the appellant.
History
Two parents tried to come to a written agreement where child support payments would be terminated because the child being supported had obtained a full time job. However, economic independence of a child is not enough reason to discontinue required child support payments.
Maureen K. is the petitioner in this case and James H. is the respondent.
History
In 1995, a motion was filed that aimed to increase the child support payments made by Mr. H from $45 to $106 weekly. Mr. H objected to this order, and a Hearing Examiner was assigned to the issue.
In this case, Ronald A. Usenza and Maura G. Gannon were both respondents and petitioners, while Maura G. Gannon was named only as a respondent.
The father objected to the Findings of Fact and order which occurred after a reversal and remand was issued by the Appellate Division. Now, the Support Magistrate must once again take up the issue and make a ruling on the child support issues based only on information presented in the original petitions from the year 2000, as everything submitted after that point is invalid and must not be taken into account.
History
Frances Bill is the respondent in this case where Gerald Bill was the appellant.
Summary
The Child Support Standards Act is the standard method used to determine child support payments based on the parents income. One of the issues included in the act is that the costs of child care are to be shared by parents in proportion to their earnings, and whether those terms can be enforced when the parties are unaware of the terms of the CSSA. The court ended up agreeing with the Family Court which ordered the father in the case to pay a percentage of the child care expenses encountered by the mother.
Frances W. is the petitioner and Steven M. is the respondent.
The Issue
The petitioner sought an order of child support against the respondent which was subsequently denied after a hearing.
The petitioners in this case are Gabriel T. Russo, the Monroe County Department of Social Services and the New York State Department of Social Services. Leonard Rizzo is the respondent.
Motions
The respondent moves to dismiss the petition.
The appellant in this case was also the former wife of the defendant. The appellant has filed for a motion to order the court to review the family support case. The former husband, also known as the former husband, has filed a motion to terminate his financial support to the former wife and reduce his payments for child support.
A New York Custody Lawyer said that the family court was tasked to review the case and determine whether the rulings should stand. In order to begin reviewing the matter, the divorce settlement of the former spouses should also be submitted for review. According to the findings of the family court, the trial court’s rulings on the marital agreement were unclear or can be interpreted in many ways. The appellate court has determined that a reversal of proceedings should be in order to determine the correctness of the trial court decisions.
The former husband and the former wife have 2 children below the age of majority. The court has finalized the divorce settlement and ordered the former husband to pay support to his former wife. He was also ordered to provide financial support for the two children. According to the family law, the former wife was entitled spousal support. The amount of support will be deducted from the former husband’s income. The spousal support was to be paid to the former wife every year. The marital agreement contains the terms of payment for spousal support. The former husband must comply with this rule by family court.
A group of students in Orange County, Florida have taken the law into their own hands, and they just might win. The students are Law Students at FAMU, studying with a prominent New York City Family Lawyer, and they have developed the bill as a forward-thinking response to child support issues in the state of Florida.
Statistically, almost 20,000 children make their way into the foster system in the state of Florida each year, most being removed from parents by the state Department of Human Resources. This volume of people creates a tangible burden on the state of Florida, one which the New York Family Lawyer and his students think that absentee parents should help to shoulder.
Essentially, the bill drafted by the students re-configures the way that forced removals are considered under the law, and applies the same rules as those that apply during custody and support hearings for custodial parents. Parents of children who have been removed from their homes would be required to pay a sort of “child support”, said the Long Island Child Support Lawyer.Opponents of the bill claim that the new system would be unethical, similar to charging “rent” to incarcerated prisoners. They also claim that placing additional financial hardship on families who could not properly care for their children in the first place can only make matters worse. The bill’s authors have claimed that the bill will contain language which allows for indigent parents, and those truly unable to pay, to apply to have the fee waived.
New York Family Law Blog