Timothy M.M. v. Doreen R.

188 A.D.3d 1711

137 N.Y.S.3d 228

In the Matter of TIMOTHY M.M., Petitioner-Appellant,

v.DOREEN R., Respondent-Respondent. (Appeal No. 2.)

648

CAF 19-01969

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: November 20, 2020

MARK A. WOLBER, UTICA, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL G. PUTTER, ROME, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

JOHN G. KOSLOSKY, UTICA, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the amended order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying respondent's motion in its entirety and reinstating the petition and as modified the amended order is affirmed without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Oneida County, for further proceedings on the petition.

Memorandum: Petitioner father and respondent mother were married in 1991 and have four children together, two of whom are the subject children. The mother also has three other children from a prior relationship. Before the two subject children were born, the father had an inappropriate sexual relationship with one of his stepdaughters. The parties nonetheless remained married until 2009, when they were divorced. Following the divorce, the mother and the stepdaughter reported the sexual abuse committed by the father to child protective services, which led to the filing of an abuse petition in Family Court. In 2010, the father was granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal with respect to the abuse petition upon the condition that he, inter alia, participate in supervised visitation with the subject children. During the next year, although the subject children continued to visit the father, they started to withdraw from him. Ultimately, they ceased visiting him altogether. In 2016, the father filed a petition seeking an order requiring the mother to facilitate his visitation with the subject children. The court, inter alia, granted the father visitation with the subject children "as he and [the mother] agree" but, despite the order, no such visitation occurred during the next three years.

In February 2019, the father commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 seeking to terminate his child support obligation with respect to the subject children on the ground that they had constructively emancipated themselves. Thereafter, the father moved for summary judgment on the petition, and the mother moved for, inter alia, summary judgment dismissing the petition. The father now appeals from an amended order that, inter alia, denied his motion and granted that part of the mother's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the petition.

"[U]nder the doctrine of constructive emancipation, a child of employable age who actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and visitation may forfeit any entitlement to support" ( Matter of Oneida County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Christman , 125 A.D.3d 1409, 1410, 3 N.Y.S.3d 222 [4th Dept. 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Saunders v. Aiello , 59 A.D.3d 1090, 1091, 875 N.Y.S.2d 656 [4th Dept. 2009] ; see generally Matter of Roe v. Doe , 29 N.Y.2d 188, 193, 324 N.Y.S.2d 71, 272 N.E.2d 567 [1971] ).

Even assuming, arguendo, that the subject children were both of employable age (see Matter of Jones v. Jones , 160 A.D.3d 1428, 1429, 75 N.Y.S.3d 400 [4th Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Jurgielewicz v. Johnston , 114 A.D.3d 945, 946, 981 N.Y.S.2d 733 [2d Dept. 2014] ; see generally Merril Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 413 at 87 [2008 ed]), we conclude that the father did not meet his initial burden on his motion of establishing that their refusal to visit with him was unjustified (see Matter of Wiegert v. Wiegert , 267 A.D.2d 620, 621, 699 N.Y.S.2d 597 [3d Dept. 1999] ; see also Christman , 125 A.D.3d at 1410, 3 N.Y.S.3d 222 ). Inasmuch as the father's own submissions suggest that the subject children did not want to visit him due to their purported knowledge of the sex abuse allegations, his submissions failed to eliminate all material issues of fact (see generally Wiegert , 267 A.D.2d at 621, 699 N.Y.S.2d 597 ). Indeed, the father failed to establish that his behavior "was not a primary cause of the deterioration in his relationship with [the subject] children" ( Matter of Shisgal v. Abels , 179 A.D.3d 1070, 1072, 118 N.Y.S.3d 631 [2d Dept. 2020] ). Thus, we conclude that the court properly denied his motion.

We also conclude that the court should not have granted that part of the mother's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the petition. The court erred...