Governor Paterson has recently signed a law which expands access to Civil Orders of Protection, allowing a person who is, or was, in an intimate relationship with an abuser – even though not related to that person – to seek an order of protection in Family Court. This substantially expands protections for victims, who for a variety of reasons may be unwilling to press charges in criminal court. Family Court Act §812 (1) (c) was amended to include in the list of persons who the court has jurisdiction to grant an order of protection to: (1) persons formerly married to one another, “regardless of whether they still reside in the same household” and (2) persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity. Subdivision (e) was added to Family Court Act §812 to include in the list of persons who the court has jurisdiction over for the purpose of granting an order of protection, “persons who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time”. For purposes of subdivision (e), neither a casual acquaintance nor ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts shall be deemed to constitute an “intimate relationship”. Factors the court may consider in determining whether a relationship is an “intimate relationship” include, but are not limited to: the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship. Laws of 2008,, Ch 325, § 10, effective July 21, 2008). This significantly enlarges the number of situations where a party can obtain an order of protection from the Family Court.
In a recent decision, Spencer v. Spencer, the New York Court of Appeals has finally clarified issues related to application of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”).
Prior to Spencer, in situations where a party had a child support order from a state where the age of emancipation was less than 21, the child support order expired due to the age of the child, and if New York courts had jurisdiction over the party, the custodial parent could bring a new child support petition in New York. Since the petition was treated as a new filing, and not a modification of the out-of-state order, the New York courts then could order child support to continue until the age of 21. This was highly inequitable to parties who had child support orders from the states where the age of emancipation was 18, such as Ohio, or 19, such as California.
Spencer was decided under the following facts. The parties in dispute were married and had several children while living in Connecticut. Following divorce, the mother moved to New York while the father continued to reside in Connecticut. When the eldest son turned 18, the Connecticut support order expired. In 2004, the alimony obligation also expired and the father, as the court noted, “began working three days a week as a consultant.” The mother brought a new child support petition in New York. The New York Family Court issued a new order in 2005 directing payment of child support lasting until age 21.
The Court of Appeals held that the New York order was a modification of the Connecticut support order under the one-order policy of the UIFSA. The Court of Appeals stated that the New York Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify an out-of-state order, and child support terminated pursuant to the terms of the initial order. As a result of the decision, prior orders entered under similar circumstances should be vacated. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals did not address whether recoupment of the child support paid under a new New York order is available to the parent who was paying child support.