| Kordes v Kordes |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00931 [70 AD3d 782] |
| February 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Frank A. Kordes, Appellant, v Susan Kordes,Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered October 4,1996, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Nassau County (Driscoll, J.), dated December 18, 2008, as denied his motion for an orderdetermining that the parties' minor child, Ashley, has voluntarily abandoned him and isemancipated from him, and that the defendant has forfeited her right to further child support forthat child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
"It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents are responsible for their children'ssupport until age 21" (Matter of Gold vFisher, 59 AD3d 443, 444 [2009]; see Family Ct Act § 413; Matter ofRoe v Doe, 29 NY2d 188, 192-193 [1971]). However, pursuant to the doctrine ofconstructive emancipation, "a child of employable age who actively abandons the noncustodialparent by refusing all contact and visitation" may forfeit any entitlement to support (Matterof Alice C. v Bernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97, 109 [1993]; see Matter of Gold v Fisher,59 AD3d at 444). "The burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it"(Schneider v Schneider, 116 AD2d 714, 715 [1986]).
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the fatherfailed to meet his burden of proving that his daughter was constructively emancipated from him(see Matter of Gold v Fisher, 59AD3d 443 [2009]; Radin v Radin, 209 AD2d 396 [1994]; Matter of Alice C. vBernard G.C., 193 AD2d 97 [1993]). The record discloses that the father may have causedthe alienation between himself and his daughter, and "[a] child's reluctance to see a parent is notabandonment, relieving the parent of any support obligation" (Radin v Radin, 209 AD2dat 396; see also Matter of Jaffee v Jaffee, 202 AD2d 264 [1994]; Lipsky vLipsky, 115 AD2d 361 [1985]). Accordingly, the court properly denied the father's motion.Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Roman, JJ., concur.