H.M. v. E.T., 14 N.Y.3d 521 (2010)
Family Court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a support petition brought by a biological parent against a former same-sex partner under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) where the petitioner alleges the respondent is a parent chargeable with the child’s support.
Summary
H.M. filed a support petition against E.T., her former same-sex partner, alleging they planned to conceive and raise a child together, with E.T. performing the artificial insemination. After the child’s birth, E.T. ended the relationship. H.M. sought child support in Canada, which was transferred to Family Court in New York under UIFSA. E.T. moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which was initially granted, then reversed by the Family Court, and later reinstated by the Appellate Division. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Family Court has jurisdiction to determine if E.T. is a parent chargeable with the child’s support under Article 4 of the Family Court Act.
Facts
H.M. and E.T. were in a romantic relationship from 1989 to 1995, cohabitating for much of that time.
In 1990, they planned to conceive and raise a child together, discussing conception methods and child-rearing.
In 1993, H.M. became pregnant via artificial insemination performed by E.T.
H.M. gave birth in September 1994; E.T. was present and cut the umbilical cord, and they shared expenses.
E.T. ended the relationship four months after the child’s birth, and H.M. moved to Canada with the child.
An attempted reconciliation failed in 1997, though E.T. occasionally provided gifts and monetary contributions for the child.
Procedural History
2006: H.M. filed a parentage and support application in Ontario, Canada.
Under UIFSA, the application was transferred to Family Court, Rockland County.
Family Court Support Magistrate dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Family Court reversed the dismissal and ordered a hearing on equitable estoppel.
The Appellate Division reversed, reinstating the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
H.M. appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Family Court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a support petition brought under UIFSA by a biological parent seeking child support from her former same-sex partner.
Holding
Yes, because Article 4 of the Family Court Act establishes the public policy of obligating individuals, regardless of gender, to provide support for their children, and Family Court has jurisdiction to determine whether an individual is responsible for the support of a child.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, but it has the power granted to it by the State Constitution or by statute. The Constitution grants Family Court jurisdiction over proceedings to determine “the support of dependents.” Family Court Act § 413(1)(a) states that “the parents of a child under the age of twenty-one years are chargeable with the support of such child.”
The court emphasized that statutory jurisdiction carries with it ancillary jurisdiction necessary to fulfill its core function. Since Family Court has subject matter jurisdiction to ascertain the support obligations of a female parent, it also has the inherent authority to ascertain in certain cases whether a female respondent is, in fact, a child’s parent.
The court noted that Family Court and Supreme Court have coextensive authority in child support matters. The relevant statutes, Family Court Act § 413 and Domestic Relations Law § 240, establish statewide child support guidelines applicable to all child support proceedings.
The court concluded that because H.M. asserts that E.T. is the child’s parent and is therefore chargeable with the child’s support, this case falls within Family Court’s Article 4 jurisdiction.