Extension of Child Support Payments for Disabled Children
The goal of the legislature in passing this law is to provide custodial parents who are charged with caring for an adult-age child with the ability to continue supporting their children, with continuing financial contribution from the non-custodial party.
December 03, 2021 at 11:00 AM
5 minute read
In October 2021, New York state enacted sweeping changes to the Domestic Relations Law and the Family Court Act by becoming the 41st state to extend the age for which the primary custodial parent of a child can receive support from the non-custodial parent. That age has now been extended from 21 to 26 years.
For custodial parents with existing support orders, to extend the age, they must petition the court to modify the order of support by demonstrating that the child who is the subject of the support order has a developmental disability codified under New York State Mental Health Law §1.03, which renders the adult-age child "principally dependent" on the petitioning party. Under Mental Health Law §1.03, the disability must (1) have originated before the child became 22 years old; (2) have continued or can be expected to continue indefinitely; and (3) constitutes a substantial handicap to the child's ability to function normally in society.
The goal of the legislature in passing this law is to provide custodial parents who are charged with caring for an adult-age child with the ability to continue supporting their children, with continuing financial contribution from the non-custodial party. Under the previous law, when a child attained the age of 21 the payor's obligation for support was immediately terminated barring an agreement between the parties to extend the age of support. As a result of this new statute, a parent with a child, despite attaining age 21, who is unable to work or provide any meaningful level of financial support for themselves due to a developmental disability, is now able to petition the court to receive an order, or modify an existing order, of child support from the non-custodial party beyond age 21 or until the adult-age child attains 26 years of age.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhen It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readDeposing Former Mayor Bill de Blasio; Misrepresentations To Induce Investment: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Trending Stories
- 1On the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
- 2Review of Ex-parte orders by the Appellate Division
- 3'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
- 4How Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
- 5Pa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250