| Matter of Gold v Fisher |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00685 [59 AD3d 443] |
| February 3, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Paul S. Gold, Appellant, v Jane E. Fisher,Respondent. |
—[*1] Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, N.Y. (Jeremy L. Goldberg and Tammy Feman of counsel), forrespondent. Ralph R. Carrieri, Mineola, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Bennett, J.), dated March 31, 2008, which, after ahearing, denied his petition to vacate a child support order.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents are responsible for their children'ssupport until age 21 (see Family Ct Act § 413; Matter of Roe v Doe, 29NY2d 188, 192-193 [1971]). Nevertheless, under the doctrine of constructive emancipation, "achild of employable age who actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contactand visitation" may forfeit any entitlement to support (Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C.,193 AD2d 97, 109 [1993]). "In contrast, where it is the parent who causes a breakdown incommunication with his child, or has made no serious effort to contact the child and exercise hisvisitation rights, the child will not be deemed to have abandoned the parent" (id.).
"The burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it" (Schneider vSchneider, 116 [*2]AD2d 714, 715 [1986]). In this case, theevidence in the record sufficiently supports the Family Court's finding that the father failed tomeet his burden (see Radin v Radin, 209 AD2d 396 [1994]; Matter of Alice C. vBernard G.C., 193 AD2d at 110). Although the father and the daughter presented somewhatdifferent reasons for their estrangement, we see no reason to disturb the Family Court's decisionto credit the daughter's testimony (seeMatter of Guevara v Ubillus, 47 AD3d 715, 716 [2008]; Matter of Commissioner ofSocial Servs. v Jones-Gamble, 227 AD2d 618, 619 [1996]; Matter of Drago vDrago, 138 AD2d 704, 705 [1988]).
The father's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Eng, JJ.,concur.