78 N.Y.2d 220 (1991)
When a child receives public assistance, a non-custodial parent’s child support obligation is not limited to the child’s share of the public assistance grant but is based on the child’s reasonable needs and the parent’s ability to pay.
Summary
The Commissioner of Social Services initiated a child support proceeding against Segarra, the father of a child receiving public assistance under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The Commissioner sought a support order retroactive to the child’s birth, based on Segarra’s income. The Family Court limited Segarra’s obligation to the child’s share of the monthly AFDC payment plus $50, reasoning that the purpose was to reimburse the government, not enrich it. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Family Court Act § 415 does not limit a parent’s support obligation to the amount of the public assistance grant, and that the Commissioner, as assignee of the custodial parent’s support rights, can seek an award based on the child’s needs and the parent’s means.
Facts
A paternity proceeding was initiated against Arnaldo Segarra by the Commissioner of Social Services.
A Family Court order of filiation was entered against Segarra in January 1981.
In July 1988, the Commissioner commenced a proceeding on behalf of Christine Wandel and her child, who were receiving public assistance under the AFDC program, seeking a support order retroactive to the child’s birth.
Segarra’s financial statement indicated an annual income of approximately $46,000.
Procedural History
The Hearing Examiner awarded child support in the sum of $269.50 per month, representing the child’s share of the monthly AFDC payment plus $50.
Family Court rejected the Commissioner’s objection to the Hearing Examiner’s findings.
The Appellate Division affirmed Family Court’s determination.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether, in a child support proceeding commenced by the Commissioner of Social Services pursuant to Family Court Act § 415, the obligation of a father for the support of his child receiving public assistance is limited to the amount of the child’s share of the monthly public assistance rather than being based on the child’s actual needs and the father’s means?
Holding
No, because Family Court Act § 415 does not limit a parent’s obligation to support their child to the child’s portion of the public assistance grant; the Commissioner, as assignee of the custodial parent’s right to compel support, is entitled to seek a child support award based on the child’s needs and the noncustodial parent’s means.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that Family Court Act § 415 explicitly permits consideration of a noncustodial parent’s means in determining child support payments, authorizing the court to require a “fair and reasonable sum” for support.
The court emphasized that the obligation of a parent to support a child arises under both common law and statute.
Referring to the 1989 amendment to section 413, known as the Child Support Standards Act, the court noted that it set “minimum and meaningful standards of obligation.”
The court cited the 1990 amendment to Family Court Act § 413, clarifying that a non-custodial parent’s pro rata share of support is not unjust simply because it exceeds the child’s share of public assistance.
“Thus, with respect to a parent’s child support obligation, Family Court Act § 415 merely supplements existing law by making it clear that a parent’s duty to support is not abrogated by a child’s receipt of public assistance; it does not limit that obligation to the amount of the public assistance grant.”
The court found nothing in the relevant statutes or regulations that limit the amount of support which a court may order to the amount of the public assistance grant.
The court examined both federal and state regulations, noting the tiered distribution scheme where the first $50 of monthly support is distributed to the family and disregarded as income, with the State retaining subsequent amounts as reimbursement for assistance payments.
The court concluded that limiting the Commissioner’s right to collect support by the amount of an AFDC payment defeats the legislative intent of Family Court Act §§ 413 and 415 and creates a disincentive for affluent noncustodial parents to make voluntary payments.
“We hold therefore that the Commissioner, as assignee of the rights of an AFDC dependent, is entitled to seek a child support award based upon the child’s needs and the noncustodial parent’s means and that the noncustodial parent’s obligation is not limited to the child’s share of the monthly public assistance grant.”