FINDINGS OF FACT
*1 Rosa L. (mother) and Frankely L. (father) had a child, Rosely L., who was born in 2006. On August 4, 2014, Family Court entered a child support order, requiring the father to pay through the Support Collection Unit $834 monthly. The mother filed a violation petition in 2014, and, when he failed to appear in court on October 17, 2014, the court entered a money judgment for $7,840 against the father. Three days later, the father petitioned to reduce his support obligation. The court modified the order on May 5, 2015 to $556 monthly. In 2016, the mother filed her second violation petition, and by November 22, 2016, the court determined that the father non-willfully failed to pay his child support obligation. The court entered a money judgment for $11,832. The parties filed several petitions that the court dismissed for various reasons, but on August 8, 2017, the court granted the father’s second downward modification petition, reducing his child support obligation to $25 monthly. On October 27, 2017, the mother filed her third violation petition, which was assigned to this specialized court that hears violation of child support orders on an expedited basis (see 22 Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [NYCRR] §205.43). At the violation hearing on November 17, 2017, the mother entered into evidence the November 15, 2017 SCU account statement, which showed that the father was ordered to pay $2,424, after entry of the November 22, 2016 money judgment. The same exhibit showed that he paid $6,880 in child support, and that the total arrears were $18,329.24, which included the prior money judgments and accrued interest.On a violation petition, the court’s function is to enforce the support order, and not debt. Family Court Act §454 outlines the court’s powers on a violation petition. The statute’s introduction states: “If a respondent is brought before the court for failure to obey any lawful order of support and if, after hearing, the court is satisfied by competent proof that the respondent has failed to obey any such order, the court may use any or all of the powers conferred upon it by this part” (Family Court Act §454 [1]). The introduction emphasizes the word order. An order is a “command, direction, or instruction” (Black’s Law Dictionary [10th ed 2014], order). In this case, the court enforces the support order, pursuant to Family Court Act §454, because it commands the father to pay $25 monthly in child support. By contrast, the October 14, 2014 and November 20, 2016 money judgments are not orders contemplated by section 454 because nowhere in the documents is there a command, direction, or instruction to the father to do anything. A judgment is a “court’s final determination of the rights and obligations of the parties in a case” (Black’s Law Dictionary [10th ed 2014], judgment), and a money judgment is a “judgment for damages subject to immediate execution, as distinguished from equitable or injunctive relief” (ibid). Applied here, the October 14, 2014 and November 20, 2016 money judgments were the court’s determinations that the father owed the mother a total of $19,672 in child support arrears. The money judgments, however, did not command, direct, or instruct the father to make any payments towards the judgments. Instead, the judgments’ principals compounded annually at 9 percent until completely paid. Because the money judgments were not by definition an order, then this
