• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Here Is One To Watch

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

topsidder

Member
What is the name of your state?

PRESS RELEASE

August 3rd, 2004

Federal Judge Orders Oral Arguments in Constitutional Challenge to NY's
Income-Base Child Support Statutes

A federal judge has ordered oral arguments in a case that challenges the
Constitutionality of New York State's income-based child support
statutes.

Highland resident Harold L. Rosenberger filed the action on April 29th,
2004. The Defendants are the New York State Office of Temporary and
Disability Assistance (OTDA), Robert Doar, commissioner of OTDA, and
Ulster County Family Court.

Mr. Rosenberger's suit asserts that the Right to Privacy guarantees
parents married, single or divorced - the right to determine how much
they spend for the benefit of their minor children. The State of New
York does not require that married parents living in an intact household
with their minor children spend a certain percentage of their income on
their children and thus, according to the lawsuit, the State cannot hold
divorced parents to a different standard.

The lawsuit claims the State cannot substitute its judgment for the
parents, but can only intrude into the Privacy protected Zone of
Parenting to prevent harm to a child. Currently, when a parent divorces
the State automatically takes a percentage of the non-custodial parent's
income and mandates the parent pay that amount or face contempt
proceedings and imprisonment for noncompliance. The State is improperly
invading the parent's right to care for and to make decisions relating
to his or her child as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and United
States Supreme Court rulings.

The Defendants, represented by the Office of the Attorney General,
failed to respond to a federal court order demanding that they file a
formal reply in a timely manner to Mr. Rosenberger's complaint.
Accordingly, Mr. Rosenberger notified the court of the Defendant's
non-compliance and the clerk of the court made Entry of Default. Only
after the Entry of Default did the Defendants appear in the action.

As a result of the Entry of Default, the Defendant's filed two motions -
one to vacate the Entry of Default and one to dismiss the Mr.
Rosenberger's complaint altogether. Mr. Rosenberger in turn filed two
cross-motions - one for Default Judgment and one to Strike the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the complaint. The court as a result of
these motions and cross motions required the oral arguments.

Mr. Rosenberger had made a good-faith effort to resolve all the motions
before the court. He was willing to stipulate that he would withdrawal
his Motion for Default Judgment provided that the Defendants withdrawal
their Motion to Dismiss and agree to allow the case to be decided on the
merits.

The Defendants and the Attorney General rejected this offer. Now,
ironically, the Office of the Attorney General argues that Default
Judgment should not be granted because, "Clearly, the statutory scheme
at issue is of such great importance that the equities require that
defendants be given the opportunity to defend the instant litigation."

Mr. Rosenberger agrees. "Let the case be decided on the merits - that's
all I've asked for from the beginning. If the Attorney General of New
York feels that the income-based child support statutes are fair and
constitutional, they should have no problem defending them and allowing
the case be decided on the merits."

Both sides agree that parents should provide support for their minor
children. But Rosenberger, representing all New York parents, points
out that the federal constitution sets the standard for support as being
that which is needed to prevent harm to the child. The State, on the
other hand, automatically takes a percentage of a non-married parent's
income for child support. Part of the reason the State does this is that
it increases the matching funds that the State receives from the federal
government, according to Rosenberger.

Rosenberger's lawsuit is about the State overreaching its
constitutionally delegated authority, especially in light of the fact
that it benefits financially at the expense of New York parents.

The oral arguments are set for October 16th, 2004 at 9:00 AM in front of
Judge Gary L. Sharpe at the U.S. District Court in Albany.


Contact:

Harold L. Rosenberger
114 Vista Drive
Highland, New York 12528
 


tigger22472

Senior Member
I agree that laws on just about every subject having to do with CS, visitation and those issues should be reevaluated but I'm not sure this is the way. There has to be SOME standard to prevent the ones who want to get out of the responsibilites and to make sure the children are taken care of. It amazes me though that if you were to apply for welfare assistance their standards are too low for you but they can determine how much CS should be paid.... Oh well, another issue, another time. we'll just have to see what happens in Oct.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top