DECISION & ORDER AFTER TRIAL On February 10, 2022, the father, G.J.G. (hereinafter “Father” or “Mr. G”) filed a downward modification petition against the mother, H.C.F. (hereinafter “Mother” or “Ms. F”). See Petition for Modification of an Order of Support (G, 02/06/2023), Nassau County Family Court Docket Number F-06630-12/23E. In his petition, Mr. G alleged that his employment changed along with a “drastic” salary decrease. He sought to reduce his child support obligation for the parties’ son, L.M. F-G (hereinafter “L” or “son” or “subject child”). On March 20, 2023, the parties appeared for a preliminary proceeding. The parties were sworn, advised of their right to counsel, and waived counsel. The parties were unable to resolve the case and chose to proceed to an immediate trial. A trial in the matter commenced. After the close of the proof, the parties delivered their summations. The Court reserved decision. Having considered the evidence presented at trial, the parties’ closing arguments, the information contained within the Universal Case Management System’s database as it relates to the parties, and the law, the Court’s determination follows: THE EVIDENCE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Mr. G’s Testimony Mr. G testified that approximately one and a half years ago, he moved from New York to Pennsylvania. He explained that the environment in New York was toxic for him and he “had to leave.” He told the Court that he decided to move to Pennsylvania to help his mother who was diagnosed with cancer. He stated that “she’s better now.” Mr. G testified that he currently earns $10.00 an hour working as a Supervisor at a company in Pennsylvania. He told the Court that his job is to drive to different locations and gather recycling materials. He stated that he is currently on Medicaid. Mr. G testified that when he lived in New York, he held a job in construction from which he earned $25.00 to $30.00 an hour. He elaborated that was a long time ago. Mr. G told the Court that he has been battling addictions for “half [of his] life.” He stated that as a result, for the last twelve and a half years, he has been bouncing from job to job and, at times, has been unemployed and homeless. Mr. G conceded that in 2018, Ms. F agreed to downwardly modify his child support obligation to $100.00 monthly, and he failed to make any payments. He told the Court that despite his failure to pay court-ordered child support in the past, he “helped [Ms. F] here and there.” Mr. G testified that after he moved to Pennsylvania, he began to make some child support payments. He told the Court that he thinks it is “unfair” that Ms. F will not agree to decrease his child support obligation. He stated that he is trying to turn his life around. Mr. G testified that he wants to pay child support and have visits with L. He argued that because he resides in Pennsylvania and L lives in New York, he does not have the money to see his son if he pays child support. Ms. F’s Testimony Ms. F testified that in 2012, the parties’ child support order was issued. She told the Court that since that time, Mr. G rarely, if ever, paid towards his child support obligation. She stated that Mr. G never helped to pay for L’s medical expenses or any of L’s other expenses either. She elaborated that Mr. G owes her approximately $91,000.00 in child support arrears. Ms. F testified that she has always been L’s sole provider. She told the Court that she never brought an enforcement petition against Mr. G because “you can’t get blood from a stone.” She stated that Mr. G has substance abuse issues which have impacted his life. She explained that because of Mr. G’s problems, he has had no interest in having contact with his son or making child support payments. Ms. F testified that in 2018, the parties appeared before Support Magistrate Nadine J. Satterthwaite (hereinafter “Magistrate Satterthwaite”). She told the Court that she agreed to lower Mr. G’s payments from $203.00 weekly to $100.00 monthly for a period of six months. She explained that she felt badly for him because Mr. G said that he was living in a “sober house” and trying to get his life together. Ms. F testified that even though his child support obligation was reduced, Mr. G failed to pay her. She told the Court that is why she did not consent to the relief sought by Mr. G in his current modification petition. Ms. F testified that approximately one and a half years ago, Mr. G moved to Pennsylvania. She told the Court that Mr. G made some child support payments since then. She stated that she was displeased that Mr. G was using their son at trial as an excuse to lower his child support obligation. She denied preventing L from seeing his father and pointed out that when Mr. G was living in New York, he never visited with his son because he did not want to do so. She told the Court that she has no problem with L meeting with his father so long as Mr. G is sober during their visits. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Upon the parties’ request, the Court took judicial notice of their mandatory financial disclosure, submitted pursuant to New York Family Court Act §424-a, which had been scanned into the Universal Case Management System’s database as follows: (1) Mr. G’s pay stubs; (2) Mr. G’s 2021 and 2022 W-2s; (3) Mr. G’s signed and notarized financial disclosure affidavit, dated March 10, 2023; (4) Ms. F’s 2020 and 2021 tax returns; (5) Ms. F’s health care coverage for L; and, (6) Ms. F’s signed and notarized financial disclosure affidavit, dated March 7, 2023. The Court also took judicial notice of the information contained within the Universal Case Management System’s database as it relates to the parties, including: (1) the parties’ consent support order, dated August 3, 2012, as issued by Support Magistrate Neil T. Miller, under Nassau County Family Court Docket Number F-06630-12; (2) Mr. G’s modification petition, dated March 2, 2018, under under Nassau County Family Court Docket Number F-06630-12/18D; (3) the parties’ consent modified support order, dated May 24, 2018, as issued by Magistrate Satterthwaite, under Nassau County Family Court Docket Number F-06630-12/18D; (4) Mr. G’s modification petition, dated February 6, 2023, under under Nassau County Family Court Docket Number F-06630-12/23E; and, (3) Magistrate Satterthwaite’s 2018 notes. DISCUSSION A petitioner seeking to modify their child support obligation has the burden of proving that a substantial change in circumstances exists. See N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT §451(3)(a) (McKinney’s 2023); see also O’Donoghue v. O’Donoghue, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1553, at *2 (2d Dep’t, Mar. 22, 2023); Cywiak v. Packman, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1064, at *2 (2d Dep’t, Mar. 1, 2023); Lopez v. Campoverde, 201 A.D.3d 719, 720 (2d Dep’t 2022); Castelli v. Maiuri-Castelli, 198 A.D.3d 752, 753 (2d Dep’t 2021); Funaro v. Kudrick, 128 A.D.3d 695, 696 (2d Dep’t 2015); Radday v. McLoughlin, 106 A.D.3d 1015, 1015-16 (2d Dep’t 2013); Kasun v. Peluo, 82 A.D.3d 769, 771 (2d Dep’t 2011); Ish-Shalom v. Wittman, 81 A.D.3d 648, 648 (2d Dep’t 2011); Aranova v. Aranova, 77 A.D.3d 740, 40 (2d Dep’t 2010). In making such determination, a court must consider, inter alia, the following factors: (1) the children’s increased needs; (2) any cost of living increase if it creates greater expenses for the children, (3) a parent’s loss of income or assets; (4) a substantial improvement in a parent’s financial situation; and, (5) the children’s current and prior lifestyles. See Cywiak, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1064, at *2-*3; see also Castelli, 198 A.D.3d at 753; Bishop v. Bishop, 170 A.D.3d 642, 644 (2d Dep’t 2019); Baumgardner v. Baumgardner, 126 A.D.3d 895, 896-97 (2d Dep’t 2015); see also Fantel v. Stamatatos, 59 A.D.3d 717, 717-18 (2d Dep’t 2009). The relevant time period for the purposes of deciding a modification application is the time frame between when the order sought to be modified was issued and the filing of the modification petition. See O’Donoghue, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1553, at *2-*3; see also Cywiak, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1064, at *3; Tomassi v. Suffolk Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 144 A.D.3d 930, 931 (2d Dep’t 2016); Saraguard v. Saraguard, 125 A.D.3d 982, 983 (2d Dep’t 2015); Kasun v. Peluso, 82 A.D.3d 769, 771 (2d Dep’t 2011). The Court finds that Mr. G has failed to meet his burden of proof. See Cywiak, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1064, at *3 (affirmed; support magistrate properly dismissed modification petition where father failed to establish reduction in income since last order and value of his assets increased since that time). By Mr. G’s own admission, for the last twelve years, he has been without a stable job or steady housing. The parties’ last modification was entered in 2018. Mr. G’s 2018 petition alleged a decrease in income due to a lost job. Magistrate Satterthwaite’s notes reflect that Ms. F agreed to appreciably reduce Mr. G’s child support obligation because Mr. G was residing in a shelter and had just finished drug rehabilitation. The facts contained within Magistrate Satterthwaite’s notes were testified to at the instant trial. Given that Mr. G was unemployed in 2018 when the parties’ last order was modified, the proof showed that Mr. G’s income has actually increased since he is now gainfully employed earning $10.00 an hour. Taking into consideration the totality of the evidence presented, there exists no substantial change in circumstances supporting a downward modification. Assuming arguendo that the Court found that Mr. G’s salary decreased, a party’s own decisions and actions do not justify a reduction in his or her child support obligation. See e.g. Roberts v. Roberts, 176 A.D.3d. 1226, 1227 (2d Dep’t 2019) (affirming denial of downward modification; finding father’s alleged decrease in income was result of “self-created hardship”); Lorenzo v. Lorenzo, 146 A.D.3d 959, 960 (2d Dep’t 2017) (upholding support magistrate’s determination; father failed to establish loss of employment was through no fault of his own); Austein-Gillman v. Gillman, 292 A.D.2d 524, 524 (2d Dep’t 2002) (affirmed: father’s “financial deterioration was caused by his own actions and decisions); Grettler v. Grettler, 12 A.D.3d 602, 603 (2d Dep’t 2004) (self-imposed hardship due to arrest and resulting employment termination insufficient for downward modification); Doyle v. Doyle, 230 A.D.2d 795, 796 (2d Dep’t 1996) (child support reduction unwarranted where father decided to alter circumstances by investing assets in new business venture). Thus, Mr. G’s decision to leave New York and relocate to Pennsylvania, because of New York’s alleged bad influence on him and his mother’s alleged ailment,1 fails to sustain his downward modification application.2 ADJUDGED that, Mr. G has failed to meet his burden of proof at trial; and it is further, ORDERED that, Mr. G’s modification petition is hereby dismissed without prejudice. This constitutes the decision, opinion and order of the Court. YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY, AFTER COURT HEARING, RESULT IN YOUR COMMITMENT TO JAIL FOR A TERM NOT TO EXCEED SIX MONTHS FOR CRIMINAL NON-SUPPORT OR CONTEMPT OF COURT; YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSES, STATE-ISSUED PROFESSIONAL, TRADE, BUSINESS AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES AND RECREATIONAL AND SPORTING LICENSES AND PERMITS; AND IMPOSITION OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY LIENS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL BY WAY OF OBJECTION MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING OF THE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF COURT, OR 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD UPON APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST. Check applicable box: Order mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed]: Order received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom Dated: March 24, 2023
