Lexplug logoLexplug

Weinberg v. Omar E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
106 A.D.2d 448 (1984)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A putative father's minority status and lack of employment do not excuse his legal obligation to support his child, nor is the mother's alleged wrongful conduct relevant to this duty. These factors are only considered when determining the monetary amount of the support award.


Facts:

  • A child was born to a mother and a putative father (appellant).
  • The appellant was a minor at the time of the support proceeding.
  • The appellant was unemployed at the time of the proceeding.
  • The appellant alleged that the mother had engaged in some form of fault or wrongful conduct.

Procedural Posture:

  • A paternity and support proceeding was initiated against the appellant in the Family Court, Rockland County.
  • The Family Court, after a hearing, entered an order directing the appellant to pay child support in the amount of $5 per week.
  • The appellant (father) appealed the Family Court's order to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Department.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a putative father's minority and lack of employment, or the mother's alleged wrongful conduct, relieve him of his legal obligation to pay child support?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam (Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Weinstein, JJ., concur)

No. A putative father's minority or the mother's alleged conduct does not negate his fundamental duty to support his child. The court reasoned that the primary purpose of a paternity proceeding is to protect the welfare of the child. Citing controlling precedent from Matter of L. Pamela P. v Frank S., the court held that the mother's conduct is irrelevant to the father's support duty. Furthermore, a father's minority does not excuse the obligation itself, though it is a factor, along with his lack of employment, to be considered when setting the actual monetary amount. The Family Court properly considered these circumstances by imposing a minimal but fair and reasonable obligation of $5 per week. The court declined to review the appellant's constitutional claims due to his procedural failure to provide the required statutory notice to the Attorney-General.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the strong public policy in New York of ensuring child support, prioritizing the child's welfare above the parents' personal circumstances or conduct. It clarifies the critical distinction between the existence of a support obligation, which is absolute for a parent, and the amount of that obligation, which is flexible and based on ability to pay. By upholding a support order against an unemployed minor, the court signals that the duty attaches at the moment of parenthood, regardless of immediate financial capacity, establishing a legal placeholder for future enforcement when the parent's circumstances improve.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Weinberg v. Omar E. (1984) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Weinberg v. Omar E.