DECISION & ORDER On October 2, 2020, QuiAnna B. (hereinafter “Ms. B.” or “Petitioner Daughter”) filed a support petition against Christopher B. (hereinafter “Mr. B.” or “Respondent Father”). In her petition, she sought her father’s contribution towards her support. Due to the Coronavirus pandemic, the matter could not be heard until January 4, 2021. On January 4, 2021, the parties appeared virtually. The parties were sworn, advised of their right to counsel, and waived such right. Issue was joined. Both parties presented their positions on the record. Ms. B. told the Court that she is 18 years old and living on her own in New York. She stated that she is in need of her father’s financial assistance. Mr. B. told the Court that Ms. B. resided in Pennsylvania most of her life. He stated that he and Ms. B.’s mother have another child together, a son, who is 13 year old. Mr. B. told the Court that his son lives with him. He stated that prior to Ms. B.’s departure to New York, she also lived with him. Mr. B. disputed Ms. B.’s claim that she moved to New York on her own. He told the Court that Ms. B. moved to New York with her mother, whom he surmised was the impetus for the petition. He provided a copy of an order issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, Domestic Relations Section, dated June 15, 2020. The order establishes that effective June 9, 2020, Ms. B. was deemed emancipated in Pennsylvania. Parents have an obligation to contribute to the economic well-being of their children. See N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT §413(1)(a) (McKinney’s 2021); see also Matter of H.M. v. E.T., 14 N.Y.3d 521, 527 (2010); Thomas B. v. Lydia. D., 69 A.D.3d 24, 27-9 (1st Dep’t 2009). In New York, child support obligations continue until a child turns twenty-one years old, or emancipates themselves through marriage, military service, a job that causes them to be self-supporting, or they constructively emancipate by withdrawing from parental supervision and control. Sees Thomas B. v. Lydia. D., 69 A.D.3d 24, 27-9 (1st Dep’t 2009); see also Bogin v. Goodrich, 265 A.D.2d 779, 781 (3d Dep’t 1999) (citing cases). New York State Family Court Act §422(a) governs who may file for support on behalf of a child. See N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT §422(a) (McKinney’s 2021). Generally, parties responsible for paying for a child’s daily living expenses may originate such proceedings. See id. When child support is ordered, such obligation is to the child. See e.g. Sultan v. Khan, 183 A.D.3d 829, 830 (2d Dep’t 2020) (death of payee custodial parent does not terminate child support obligation); see also Modica v. Thompson, 300 A.D.2d 662, 662 (2d Dep’t 2002) (same). For this reason, the law permits an unemancipated child, who is living apart from his or her parents, to commence a support proceeding against one or both of them. Id.; see also Dean v. Dean, 67 Misc. 3d 325, 328 (Monroe Cty. Sup. Ct., 02/05/20). In the state of Pennsylvania, the age of majority is 18. See 23 Pa.C.S. §4321(2) (2021) (parents liable for support of children 18 and younger); see also 23 Pa.C.S. §5101 (2021) (attainment of full age). While she resided there, Ms. B. was the beneficiary of court-ordered child support. In June, 2020, after she had turned 18 years old, a Lehigh County domestic relations judge emancipated her. See B. v. B. (Pavlack, J., 06/15/20), Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas Docket Number DR-19-00038. Having been the recipient of child support in Pennsylvania and having been emancipated by court order there, Ms. B. can not now move to New York State, in which the age of emancipation is 21, and file for 3 more years of child support. A state issuing an order loses continuing, exclusive jurisdiction where all of the parties and children no longer reside there, or all of the parties file their written consent for another state to assume such jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.S. §1738B(d) (2021); see also Zagarino v. McLean, 154 A.D.3d 769, 769 (2d Dep’t 2017); see also Batesole-Harmer v. Batesole, 28 A.D.3d 551, 551 (2d Dep’t 2006); Hutchison v. Pirro, 11 A.D.3d 465, 466 (2d Dep’t 2004). Mr. B. still resides in Pennsylvania. There was no proof provided that all of the parties consented in writing to New York State jurisdiction.1 Thus, the Court must give full faith and credit to the parties’ Pennsylvania order since Pennsylvania has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. See 28 U.S.C.S. §1738B (2021) (Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act); see also 42 U.S.C. §666 (2021) (Uniform Interstate Family Support Act).2 A court has the authority to dismiss a petition, sua sponte, where extraordinary circumstances exist. See Weindling v. Berkowitz, 157 A.D. 3d 803, 804-05 (2d Dep’t 2018); see also First United Mtge. Banking Corp. v. Lawani, 147 A.D. 3d 912, 913 (2d Dep’t 2017); Henning v. 17 Murrray Rest Corp., 137 A.D.3d 1216, 1217 (2d Dep’t 2016); Jones v. Maples, 286 A.D.2d 639, 639 (1st Dep’t 2001). In light of the evidence presented, the Court finds that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting sua sponte dismissal of Ms. B.’s petition. ORDERED, that Ms. B.’s child support petition is hereby dismissed, sua sponte, with prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action. This constitutes the decision, opinion and order of the Court. Dated: January 6, 2021
