New York Family Law Blog
Valvo v. Valvo, 218 A.D.3d 909 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023) involves an appeal from the Family Court of Saratoga County regarding a petition to modify maintenance and child support obligations. The dispute arises from a divorce between the petitioner (referred to as the father) and the respondent (referred to as the mother) in 2012.
In New York, Family Court will grant a downward modification in child support only under limited circumstances as follows:
- Financial Hardship: One of the most common reasons for seeking a reduction in child support payments is a significant change in the financial circumstances of one or both parents. For example, if the non-custodial parent experiences a loss of income, such as unemployment or disability, they may petition the court for a reduction in child support payments. However, it’s essential to demonstrate that the loss of income is involuntary and not due to willful neglect or avoidance of child support obligations.
- Change in Custodial Arrangements: Changes in custody arrangements, such as the child spending more time with the non-custodial parent, can also warrant a reduction in child support payments. If the non-custodial parent assumes a more significant share of the child’s expenses due to increased visitation or custody, the court may adjust the child support obligation accordingly.
- Emancipation of the Child: When a child reaches the age of emancipation, typically 18 years old in most jurisdictions, the court may reduce or terminate child support payments. Emancipation can also occur if the child marries, joins the military, or becomes financially independent before reaching the age of majority.
- Change in Healthcare or Educational Needs: If there is a significant change in the child’s healthcare or educational needs, such as a decrease in medical expenses or tuition costs, the court may consider reducing child support payments to reflect these changes accurately.
- Voluntary Agreement Between Parents: In some cases, parents may reach a voluntary agreement to modify child support payments outside of court. If both parents agree to a reduction in child support payments and submit the agreement to the court for approval, the court will generally honor the agreement unless it finds that it is not in the best interest of the child.
- Other Financial Obligations: If the non-custodial parent has other significant financial obligations, such as spousal support payments, medical expenses, or debts, the court may consider these obligations when determining whether to reduce child support payments. However, the court will prioritize the child’s needs and welfare when making such decisions.
Background Facts
The parties divorced in 2012 after a 23-year marriage, and their divorce judgment incorporated a separation agreement outlining maintenance and child support provisions for their three children. In 2018, the father sought to modify these obligations, leading to a reduction in child support by a Support Magistrate. Subsequently, the father filed another petition in 2020, alleging a decrease in income since the divorce, seeking further modification.
Issue
The central issue in this case is whether the father demonstrated extreme hardship justifying a reduction in maintenance and modification of child support obligations.
Holding
The court determined that the father failed to establish extreme hardship warranting modification of maintenance obligations. However, a modification of child support was warranted based on a change in the father’s income.
Discussion
The court emphasized that modification of maintenance requires a showing of extreme hardship, and the burden falls on the party seeking the modification. The father’s self-imposed limitations on employment opportunities and reluctance to utilize available benefits influenced the court’s decision. Additionally, the court imputed income to the father based on his education and experience, resulting in reinstatement of the previous maintenance obligation.
Regarding child support, while the father’s income change justified modification, the mother’s petition did not seek an upward modification. Therefore, the court reinstated the prior child support obligation and remanded the matter to recalculate any outstanding arrears.
Conclusion
The court upheld the decision to deny modification of maintenance obligations due to the father’s failure to demonstrate extreme hardship. However, a modification of child support was granted based on the change in the father’s income. The court’s decision highlights the importance of meeting the burden of proof in seeking modification of support obligations and ensuring fairness in family court proceedings.