| Matter of Lowe v Lowe |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08012 [67 AD3d 682] |
| November 4, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Penny A. Lowe, Appellant, v Mark Lowe,Respondent. |
—[*1] Ostertag O'Leary Barrett & Faulkner, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Maura A. Barrett of counsel), forrespondent.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), dated December 11, 2008, whichdenied his objections to an order of the same court (Kaufman, S.M.), dated September 16, 2008,granting, after a hearing, the mother's petition to terminate her child support obligation, set forthin the parties' judgment of divorce dated January 23, 2006, on the ground that the parties' childwas emancipated.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although a parent of a minor child has a continuing obligation to support the child until theage of 21 (see Family Ct Act § 413), emancipation of the child suspends theparent's support obligation (see Matter of Roe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188, 192-193 [1971]; Matter of Cellamare v Lakeman, 36AD3d 906 [2007]; Matter of Fortunato v Fortunato, 242 AD2d 720, 721 [1997];Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97, 105 [1993]). In this regard, childrenare deemed emancipated if they attain economic independence through employment or entry intomilitary service or marriage and, further, may be deemed constructively emancipated if, withoutcause, they withdraw from parental supervision and control (see Matter of Roe v Doe, 29NY2d at 193-194; Matter of Holscher vHolscher, 4 AD3d 629 [2004]; Matter of Bogin v Goodrich, 265 AD2d 779, 781[1999]; Matter of Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d at 105).
Here, it was established at the hearing that the child, who was 20 years old, was workingfull-time since June of 2008, earning a base salary of $640 per week plus substantial overtime.The child also would be eligible for health insurance through his employer in September 2008.The child was living at home with his father, who supported him and paid his expenses becausehe thought he was required to by the parties' stipulation of settlement, which was incorporatedbut not merged into the judgment of divorce. The record supports the Support Magistrate'sdetermination that the child earned an amount sufficient to be self-supporting and, therefore,achieved economic independence through employment (see Matter of Calabro v Calabro,297 AD2d 808, 809 [2002]; Matter of Fortunato v Fortunato, 242 AD2d at 721;Benson v Benson, 79 AD2d 694, 695 [1980]).[*2]
Accordingly, the child has become emancipated, thusrelieving the mother of her obligation to support him, and the Family Court properly denied thefather's objections to the Support Magistrate's order. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Leventhal, JJ.,concur.