Child Support, Equitable Estoppel and Same-Sex Relationship

I have previously written about issues of equitable estoppel, which may result in non-biological parent being treated as a biological parent of the child. Recently, I came across a case, H.M. v. E.T., 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 04240 (2nd Dept. 2009) that dealt with applicability of equitable estoppel to child support in a same-sex relationship situation.

In October of 2006, H.M., an Ontario resident, and the birth mother of a 12-year-old child, filed a “Support Application” with a Canadian agency, seeking to have E.T., a Rockland County resident, and H.M.’s former same-sex partner, adjudicated a parent of the child. H.M. also sought an award of child support retroactive to the date of the child’s birth.  In support of her application, H.M. alleged that in August 1989, the parties lived in New York, entered into a monogamous relationship, and started cohabitating. H.M. alleged that the parties then agreed that she would attempt to become impregnated via artificial insemination, and that after a child was born, they would parent that child together. H.M. alleged that pursuant to this agreement, and with E.T.’s assistance and encouragement, she became impregnated by sperm from an anonymous sperm donor. In September 1994, H.M. gave birth to the child. H.M. alleged that over the next few months, E.T. acted as a parent to the child by nurturing and caring for him. However, H.M. alleged that in January 1995, E.T. ended the parties’ relationship. H.M., who subsequently relocated with the child to Canada, alleged that after the relationship ended, she made numerous requests of E.T. for child support, all of which were refused.

After the child support proceeding was commenced in Canada, the case was transmitted to the Family Court, Rockland County pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (Family Ct Act art 5-B (hereinafter “UIFSA”).  Initially, the Support Magistrate found that under the present law of New York, there was no basis upon which the Family Court could adjudicate E.T. a parent of the subject child and require her to pay child support. In this regard, the Support Magistrate noted that E.T. was not the birth mother of the child or an adoptive parent of the child, never executed an official acknowledgment of parentage of the child, and was not in a legally recognized same-sex marriage or civil union with H.M. when she gave birth to the child. The Support Magistrate, pointing out that the Family Court is a court of law with limited subject matter jurisdiction, found no provision in Family Court Act Article 5, or in any other article of the Family Court Act, applicable to a controversy between a birth mother and another female concerning the other female’s parentage of a child. Finally, the Support Magistrate, deeming all of H.M.’s factual allegations to be true, and observing that equitable considerations might suggest that E.T. be adjudicated a parent of the child and required to pay child support, noted that the Family Court cannot grant equitable relief.

Subsequently, after the objections to the Support Magistrate’s Order were filed, the Family Court overturned the Support Magistrate’s Order citing cases where courts “held individuals responsible for the support of a child even though they were not related to the child by biology or adoption.” The Family Court observed that in those cases, the courts applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel which, the Family Court noted, will be applied in order to protect the best interests of a child born out-of-wedlock. Thus, the Family Court concluded that “a paternity proceeding [can] proceed against a same sex partner if circumstances are established justifying the [doctrine’s] application.” Then, the Family Court, noting that the subject child was born as a result of E.T.’s “promises,” concluded that H.M.’s allegations, if true, could support a finding that E.T. “should be estopped [from denying] her role as a person responsible to provide support for [that] child.” Accordingly, the Family Court directed a hearing to determine whether E.T. “should be equitably estopped [from denying] her responsibility to provide support to the subject child.”

E.T. appealed from the order of the Family Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Family Court’s order and reinstated the order of the Support Magistrate dismissing the petition. The Appellate Division stated that the basic premise of the petition was that  H.M. who was never married to or in a civil union with E.T., sought to have E.T., a woman having no biological or legal connection to the subject child, adjudicated a parent of that child and required to pay child support. Since the Family Court received H.M.’s support application pursuant to UIFSA, it was authorized to determine “parentage” (Family Ct Act § 580-301[b][6]; § 580-701). UIFSA provides that in deciding such a proceeding, the Family Court is required to apply the procedural and substantive law generally applicable to a “similar” proceeding originating in this State, and may only exercise whatever “powers” and provide whatever “remedies” that are “available” in such a proceeding.

The only proceeding in this State “similar” to a proceeding for a determination of “parentage” is a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5. Yet, as the Support Magistrate recognized, Family Court Act article 5, entitled “paternity proceedings,” only provides a vehicle for resolving controversies concerning a man’s fatherhood of a child.  After analyzing the language of the Family Court Act, the court concluded that a paternity proceeding requires “the male party” to be “the father” of the child.

The court further held that although the doctrine of equitable estoppel can be applied in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act  Article 5, when the Family Court applies the doctrine, the Family Court is merely precluding a party from “denying a certain fact”.  This is not the same thing as the Family Court granting equitable relief, something the Family Court lacks the power to do. Therefore, when the Family Court applies the doctrine, the Family Court is doing so as a means of granting relief specifically authorized by the Constitution or statute. That is, the Family Court is applying the doctrine as a means of adjudicating a “male” “the father” of a child. However, H.M. has demanded certain relief the Family Court is not specifically authorized by the Constitution or statute to grant. Under these circumstances, the Family Court could not apply the doctrine, and could not reach the issues of whether E.T. should be estopped from denying her parentage of the subject child, and whether estopping E.T. from denying her parentage of the child would be in the child’s best interests. If the Family Court applied the doctrine as a means of granting relief not specifically authorized by the Constitution or statute, that would be tantamount to the Family Court granting equitable relief.

The logic of the Appellate Division’s decision, its heavy emphasis on the language of the Family Court Act, and especially the use of the term “male”, raise the question of whether a different result would have been reached on these facts if both parties to this litigation were male. Since recent decisions in this area of family law have been gender neutral, it seems likely that the Court of Appeals, if the case is appealed, will likely focus on on whether any such applications should be considered on a gender neutral basis and also, even more importantly, whether the courts will move away from “paternity by estoppel” toward “parentage by estoppel” as a matter of equity. I believe that we may learn the answer to this question in the foreseeable future.

Divorce, Timeliness of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders and Statute of Limitations

I have previously written that in order to divide retirement assets after the parties’ divorce, the court must enter a qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”) to divide such assets. However, it is not uncommon that a QDRO is not entered right away. Occasionally, I see cases where there is a need to enter a QDRO many years after the entry of the judgment of divorce. Recently, in Patricia A. M., v. Eugene W. M., 2009 N.Y. Slip. Op. 29232 (Sup. Ct. 2009), the Supreme Court, Erie County, provided an illustration of what pitfalls may be faced by a divorce litigant who waits a significant period of time before obtaining a QDRO.

Eugene M., retired on November 4, 2000, and began receiving pension benefits at that time. A QDRO was signed on March 15, 2006, and an amended QDRO was granted on November 21, 2006, putting into effect the rights of Patricia M., regarding Mr. M.’s pension benefits. Prior to entry of either QDRO, Mr. M. began paying part of his pension benefits to Ms. M., commencing in May, 2002, at the rate of $650.00 per month.  Ms. M. brought a motion seeking recovery of amounts she claims she should have been paid as her portion of Mr. M.’s pension prior to the commencement of direct payments pursuant to the QDRO. These amounts covered the period from the date of retirement to April, 2002, a missed payment in November, 2005, and the period from February, 2006 to December, 2006, when no payments were made. In addition, she alleged that she received only a partial payment in December, 2005. The total amount allegedly owed was $19,770.46.

Mr. M. opposed the motion, arguing that this motion, inter alia, was barred by the statute of limitations applicable to contract actions. He asserted that the equitable distribution of his pension benefits was not specifically mentioned in the judgment of divorce and, therefore, Ms. M.’s only remedy is a breach of contract action. The court held that, under Tauber v. Lebow, 65 N.Y.2d 596 (1985), payments awarded in a divorce decree “do not constitute a judgment debt until the arrearages are reduced through further proceedings to a judgment.” Ms. M.’s claim for breach of the agreement accrued at the time of the breach, which was no earlier than the date of Mr. M.’s retirement, in November, 2000. Because Mr. M.’s obligation was to pay on a monthly basis as pension benefits were paid to him, each failure to pay constituted a separate breach. This left Ms. M. unable to recover for those amounts she claimed were not paid from November, 2000, to April, 2002.

The lesson of this case is that this litigation could have been avioided, and Ms. M would not have lost those retirement payments, had the lawyer for Ms. M. entered a QDRO in a timely fashion.  Further, the statute of limitations applicable to contract actions may arise in post-dviorce proceedings in other ways as well.  For example, if a post-divorce child support arrears cannot be enforced by seeking an enforcement of the judgment of divorce, and instead the party is forced to proceed to enforce a separation agreement as a contract, the same six year statute of limitations may be applicable.

Recoupment of Maintenance After Successful Appeal

I have previously written about recoupment of pendente lite maintenance in a divorce action after the entry of a final maintenance award. The recent decision by the Court of Appeals in Johnson v. Chapin, previously discussed in this post, allowed recoupment of pendente lite maintenance as an adjustment to the equitable distribution award.

But what happens if the permanent maintenance award is overturned on appeal? In Rader v. Rader, 54 A.D.3d 919 (2nd Dept. 2008), the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that public policy prohibits recoupment of both pendente lite and permanent maintenance paid pursuant to court order or judgment which is subsequently set aside on appeal.

In Rader, the plaintiff stopped paying the defendant maintenance in January 2006, contending that the parties’ judgment of divorce entered September 18, 1998 required him to pay maintenance only for a period of 10 years, retroactive to the commencement of the divorce action in January 1996. The defendant claimed that she was entitled to maintenance until July 2007-10 years after the date of the decision awarding her maintenance.

In an order dated July 7, 2006 the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion, directed the plaintiff to pay the defendant maintenance for a period of 10 years, retroactive to July 1997, when the decision awarding her maintenance was made, and granted the defendant leave to enter a money judgment for maintenance arrears, plus the sum of $1,500 as an attorney’s fee. A money judgment was subsequently entered on July 26, 2006. The plaintiff appealed, and after some additional litigation between the parties, ultimately paid the sum of $54,000 in maintenance for the period from July 2006 until April 2007, plus the sum of $2,000 as an attorney’s fee, for a total sum of $56,000, while the appeal was pending.

In a decision dated April 17, 2007, the Appellate Division reversed the money judgment, and modified the order dated July 7, 2006 upon finding that the plaintiff’s obligation to pay maintenance terminated on January 9, 2006, or 10 years after the divorce action was commenced. Subsequently, the plaintiff moved for reimbursement of the sums of $54,000 in maintenance and $2,000 in attorneys’ fees he paid. In opposition, the defendant noted, inter alia, that she already spent the disputed $56,000 on her living expenses and attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion.

The Second Department held that there is a strong public policy against recoupment of both pendente lite and permanent maintenance paid pursuant to a court order or judgment which is subsequently set aside on appeal. The reason for this policy is that maintenance and child support payments are “deemed to have been devoted to that purpose, and no funds exist from which one may recoup moneys so expended” if the award is thereafter reversed or modified. The Court further noted that if there were unpaid arrears of other obligations, such as carrying charges for the marital residence, the payor spouse may be granted a credit against those arrears for maintenance paid pursuant to an order which was reversed on appeal.

Is Rader still good law after the Court of Appeals’ decision in Johnson v. Chapin?. I believe that it is, especially with respect to the final maintenance awards. However, it is likely that we will see divorce lawyers making arguments for recoupment even with respect to the final maintenance awards overturned on appeal. I am familiar with a divorce case that is currently pending here in Rochester that may raise issues identical to those in Rader after the Court of Appeals’ decision in Johnson v. Chapin. I will post on that case once it has been resolved.

Paying For Summer Camp and Child Support

As the end of the school year approaches, parents usually begin to look at various activities their children may participate in during the summer.  One such popular option is a summer camp, which may be a day camp or a sleep-away camp.  I am often asked who is obligated to pay for it.

I have previously written that under New York’s Child Support Standards Act, the parent paying child support is typically obligated to pay a portion of child care and other expenses.  In Micciche v. Micciche, 2009 NY Slip Op 03702 (2nd Dept. 2009), the Appellate Division affirmed the principle that the cost of the summer camp is considered to be a part of the  child care expense, and as such, both parties are required to contribute their pro-rata share in accordance with their income.

If there are no contrary provisions in the parties’ separation agreement or judgment of divorce, and one of the parents refuses to contribute his or her share of summer camp, I recommend that the other party discuss this issue with an experienced family law lawyer.  Sometimes, it only takes a letter from an attorney to resolve such disputes.

Overpayment of Pendente Lite Maintenance and Equitable Distribution

I have previously written that the Supreme Court has wide latitude in fashioning pendente lite (interim) maintenance awards while the divorce action is pending.  But what happens if the trial court ultimately decides that the pendente lite maintenance award was excessive?  The Court of Appeals recently addressed this issues in Johnson v. Chapin, 2009N.Y.  Slip. Op. 03630 (2009).

In Johnson, the Court of Appeals held that when a pendente lite award of maintenance is found at trial to be excessive or inequitable, the court may make an appropriate adjustment in the equitable distribution award.  Thus, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving husband a credit representing the amount of the pendente lite maintenance he paid that exceeded what he was required to pay under the final maintenance award.  In determining the temporary maintenance award, Supreme Court imputed an average salary in excess of $2 million to husband. However, at trial, it was established that his income was significantly lower. Given the disparity in the maintenance amounts, under the circumstances of this case, it was appropriate for the husband to receive a credit for excessive maintenance paid.

This decision is significant since it reaffirms the principle that pendente lite awards are temporary and are subject to adjustment.  An experienced divorce lawyer will not rest after obtaining a favorable pendente lite relief for the client, but will continue to work to make sure that the any pendente lite maintenance, or other interim award, is preserved as a part of a final decision.

Parental Interference With Visitation and Suspension of Child Support

I have previously written that a child support obligation can be suspended or terminated in situations where the court makes a finding that the child has deliberately severed his/her relationship with a parent, thereby abandoning that parent. However, in order for a court to make a finding of abandonment, the child must be of employable age.

Even if the child is not of employable age, the non-custodial parent’s child support obligation can be suspended or terminated, if the breakdown in the parent-child relationship came as a result of the actions of the custodial parent.

In Ledgin v. Ledgin, 36 A.D.3d 669 (2nd Dept. 2007), the Appellate Division held that interference with visitation rights can be the basis for the cancellation of arrears of maintenance and the prospective suspension of both maintenance and child support. However, such relief is warranted only where the custodial parent’s actions rise to the level of “deliberate frustration” or “active interference” with the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights.

In Frances W. v Steven M., 15 Misc.3d 839 (Fam. Ct. Queens Co. 2007), the court held that petitioner was not entitled to child support where she intentionally aided her sister in brainwashing the child, who is almost 20 years old, into falsely believing that the father had sexually abused her when she was an infant, and otherwise poisoned the child’s relationship with respondent from the time she was four years old. The court stated that since petitioner was an active participant in destroying her niece’s relationship with the father, “she was precluded from obtaining child support from respondent as a matter of fundamental fairness.”

In S.M.B. v D.R.B, 17 Misc.3d 1132(A) (Fam. Ct. Onondaga Co. 2007), petitioner father sought vacatur of order of support contained in parties’ divorce judgment, which incorporated their opt-out agreement. Father began his action after the mother engaged in pattern of active interference and deliberate frustration of child’s relationship with father. Mother was very angry that father paid no more child support than what’s been ordered by court. Mother has withheld father’s access to child since she moved to Florida and remarried. The court found that mother’s acts of alienation were not isolated incidents but a continuing pattern. The court further found that the child now shows no interest in having relationship with father because of mother’s unfortunate endeavors. Father’s support obligation vacated since father met his burden of establishing that mother unjustifiably frustrated his right to reasonable access.

If the child is not of employable age, and the custodial parent did not interfere with the relationship between the non-custodial parent and the child, the non-custodial parent’s obligation to pay child support will not be terminated by the court. Foster v. Daigle, 25 A.D.3d 1002 (3rd Dept. 2006).

Since most of these cases are tried on the issue of parental interference, it is important that each such case, before it is brought, is carefully screened by an experienced family law lawyer. Because parental interference cases require a significant level of proof, it is important that a petitioner is represented by an attorney familiar with such cases.

Divorce, Equitable Distribution and Marital Fault

I am often asked whether as a lawyer, I am able to persuade the court to divide the parties’ assets unequally in situations where one of the parties had an affair, engaged in some acts of domestic violence, or committed repeated acts of verbal and emotional abuse. In nearly every case, my response is that in most of the cases, marital fault is irrelevant to the equitable distribution issues.

The New York State Legislature, in 1980, enacted the Equitable Distribution Law (“EDL”) (codified as Domestic Relations Law § 236 B). The adoption of which had been advocated because the traditional common law theory of property resulted in inequities upon the dissolution of a marriage. The EDL was premised on the entirely new theory that a marriage is an economic partnership to which both parties contribute as spouse, wage earner or homemaker, and mandates the equitable distribution of marital assets based upon the circumstances of each particular case. Under the EDL, the distribution of marital assets depends not only on the financial contribution of the parties but also on a wide range of non-enumerated services to the joint enterprise, such as homemaking, raising children and providing the emotional and moral support necessary to sustain the other spouse in coping with the vicissitudes of life outside the home. Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(5)(d) lists 13 factors to be considered when making an equitable distribution award, which factors encompass, among other things, the income and property of each party at the time of the marriage and at the time the divorce action was commenced, the duration of the marriage, the age and health of the parties, a maintenance award if one had been issued, and the non-titled spouse’s direct or indirect contributions to the marriage.

It is now recognized that marital fault may be taken into account under the EDL’s “catchall provision,” which allows for the consideration of “any other factor which the court shall expressly find to be just and proper” (DRL §236[B][5][d][13]). The criteria which must be considered when evaluating whether marital fault should play a role in any particular case were first stated by the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Blickstein v. Blickstein, 99 A.D.2d 287, appeal dismissed, 62 N.Y.2d 502 (1984), which stated that the “marital misconduct [must be] so egregious or uncivilized as to bespeak of a blatant disregard of the marital relationship – misconduct that shocks the conscience’ of the court thereby compelling it to invoke its equitable power to do justice between the parties” (Id. at 292). This guideline was explicitly adopted by the Court of Appeals in O’Brien v. O’Brien, 66 N.Y.2d 576, 589-590 (1985).

In McCann v McCann, 156 Misc.2d 540 (Sup. Ct. 1993), the court addressed issues of marital misconduct. In McCann, a husband had married with the express promise to his wife to make every effort to have children. He subsequently refused to fulfill that promise after several years of lying, and as a result his wife became infertile because of her advanced age. The court found that, while the husband’s misconduct showed “a blatant disregard for the marital relationship” and was “morally reprehensible,” it did not constitute egregious marital conduct sufficient to be considered in equitably distributing the marital assets. To be deemed egregious, the court concluded, conduct must “callously imperil[] the value our society places on human life and the integrity of the human body”.

The only cases in which reprehensible behavior has been deemed to constitute egregious fault sufficient to affect equitable distribution have involved extreme violence. In Havell v. Islam, 301 A.D.2d 339 (1st Dept. 2002), for example, the Appellate Division, First Department upheld the matrimonial court’s award of more than 95% of the marital estate to a wife where her husband beat her with a barbell and a piece of pipe, thereby breaking her nose, jaw and some of her teeth, causing multiple contusions and lacerations, along with neurological damage and other serious injuries. While the husband pleaded guilty to first-degree assault on his wife, the First Department accepted the lower court’s finding that the husband’s attack amounted to attempted murder and constituted egregious marital fault. Egregious fault has also been found in instances of rape, kidnapping , and protracted and severe physical abuse.

Conversely, conduct that courts have found not to be egregious include adultery , alcoholism, abandonment , and verbal harassment coupled with several acts of minor domestic violence.

A recent example of how high this standard is set, was demonstrated in Howard S. v. Lillian S., 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 01880 (1st Dept. 2009). In Howard S., the wife allegedly misrepresented to her husband that he was the biological father of one of their children, when in fact the child was conceived during her adultery and fathered by her lover.

The husband married the wife in May 1997 and they had four children. In February 2004, the wife had an extramarital affair with an unnamed man and became pregnant with a child, who was born in December 2004. Husband contends that the wife knew or should have known that husband was not the child’s biological father, but concealed that information from him.

According to the complaint, in February 2007, the wife began another affair which “continues to this day.” Wife also concealed this second adulterous relationship from husband, but in the spring of 2007, suggested that they separate and enter into a collaborative law process.

During this period husband had become suspicious about child’s parentage, allegedly due to all the jokes within the circle of family and friends that the child looked nothing like him. Without telling his wife, the husband, in February 2008, arranged for a DNA test of himself and the child. The test confirmed that he was not the child’s biological father. The wife now acknowledges that husband is not the child’s biological father, but claims that she learned this from the DNA test results and denies that she deliberately concealed the truth about the child’s parentage from her husband.

The divorce complaint filed by the husband asserted causes of action for divorce based on both cruel and inhuman treatment and adultery, and asserts a separate claim based on fraud. As damages for the fraud claim, husband seeks to recover his child support expenses for the child, the fees for the parties’ collaborative law process, and profits from the couple’s investments from the time of child’s conception until the commencement of the divorce action.

In May 2008, husband moved for “expanded discovery” to prove “defendant’s egregious fault,” the fraud claim, and her lack of contribution to and dissipation of the marital property. The lower court limited the recoverable damages to husband’s share of the fees for the collaborative law process. The court also denied the husband’s request for expanded discovery as to wife’s marital fault on the ground that her alleged misconduct did not constitute egregious fault and had no bearing on prospective spousal maintenance and equitable distribution. The husband appealed on the grounds that the court (1) erred by holding that he had failed to state a claim for egregious fault and (2) erred by holding that he could not recover child support payments and certain real estate investments as damages for his fraud claim.

The Appellate Division held that while the wife’s alleged misconduct could not be condoned and was clearly violative of the marital relationship, it did not rise to the level of egregious fault, since she neither endangered the lives or physical well-being of family members, nor deliberately embarked on a course designed to inflict extreme emotional or physical abuse upon them.

In view of the cases cited above, this result was almost certain from the beginning. As painful and harmful lies and deceit in a marriage may be, and Howard S. is as egregious of a case as I have ever seen, unless there was a significant violence between the parties, the court would not alter equitable distribution on the basis of marital fault. At the same time, New York’s equitable distribution principles do not require equal distribution, if other factors of the EDL can be satisfied. If you in a situation where you are dealing with these issues, and considering divorce, I suggest that you speak with an experienced New York divorce lawyer.

Unmarried Fathers, Child Support and Liability for Birth Expenses of the Child and the Mother

In a typical child support proceeding brought under the Article 4 of the Family Court Act, the child support is retroactive to the date of the filing of the child support petition.  The Family Court is generally unable to grant child support to a date preceding the filing, unless the child is receiving public assistance.   However, where the paternity is concerned, Family Court’s powers are much broader.  Paternity proceedings are governed by the Article 5 of the Family Court Act.  Article 5 contains two sections that address child support, including costs of birth and related expenses: Section 514 and Section 545.

Under Section 514 of the Family Court Act, the father is liable to pay the reasonable expenses of the mother’s confinement and recovery and such reasonable expenses in connection with her pregnancy, as the court in its discretion may deem proper.  What makes this significantly different from child support proceeding under Article 4 of the Family Court Act, usually Sections 412 and 413, is that the mother’s expenses typically occur well before the petition is filed and even before the child is born.  While Section 514 gives the Family Court at least some discretion in apportioning such expenses, if the mother was receiving public assistance during her pregnancy, the father may be liable to the social services district furnishing such medical assistance and to the state department of social services for the full amount of medical assistance so expended.  See Wayne County Dept. of Social Services ex rel. Van Dusen v. Petty, 273 A.D.2d 943 (4th Dept. 2000).

Under Section 545(1) of the Family Court Act, the father is responsible for child support, retroactive to the earlier of the date of the application for an order of filiation, or, if the children for whom support is sought are in receipt of public assistance, the date for which their eligibility for public assistance was effective.  However, under Section 545(2) of the Family Court Act, the Family Court’s discretionary powers are much broader.  Section 545(2) provides that the court, in its discretion, taking into consideration the means of the father and his ability to pay and the needs of the child, may direct the payment of a reasonable sum or periodic sums to the mother as reimbursement for the needs of the child accruing from the date of the birth of the child to the date of the application for an order of filiation.  In my experience, in dealing with a petition brought under Section 545, the Family Court unambiguously focuses on the unwed father’s present ability to pay, as measured by his current resources and his earning capacity, and not what the unwed father’s ability to pay was at the time of birth.  This may come as an unwelcome surprise to the unwed father, if the petition is brought several years after the child is born.

Yet another difference between proceedings brought under Article 5 of the Family Court Act and Article 4 of the Family Court Act is that under Section 517 of the Family Court Act, proceedings to establish the paternity of a child, and to establish liability for mother’s expenses, may be instituted during the pregnancy of the mother or after the birth of the child.

As a lawyer frequently dealing with these issues, I  evaluate my clients’ financial situation at the time of the child’s birth and the time the petition is brought, since the court will focus on my client’s ability to pay.  I also analyze the mother’s finances within the same time frame and also the proof of payment of medical bills.  Ocasionally, these cases are won and lost on the issue of admissibility of the medical bills.