H.M. v. E.T., 14 N.Y.3d 521 (2010)
Family Court’s jurisdiction is limited by statute; it cannot compel child support from an individual lacking a biological or legal parental connection to the child based solely on equitable principles where no statutory basis exists for such an order.
Summary
H.M. petitioned for child support from her former same-sex partner, E.T., under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The child was conceived during their relationship but E.T. ended the relationship when the child was three months old. The New York Court of Appeals held that Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order E.T. to pay child support because E.T. had no biological or legal relationship to the child. Family Court’s jurisdiction is limited and it cannot grant equitable relief to create a support obligation where none exists under the Family Court Act.
Facts
H.M. and E.T. were formerly same-sex partners. H.M. gave birth to a child conceived during their relationship. E.T. ended the relationship with H.M. when the child was three months old. H.M. then filed a petition seeking to compel E.T. to pay child support for the child.
Procedural History
H.M. filed a support petition in Family Court under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The Family Court granted the petition and ordered E.T. to pay child support. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Family Court lacked jurisdiction. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, but on reargument, adhered to its original determination and reversed the Family Court’s order, dismissing the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether Family Court has subject matter jurisdiction to order a person to pay child support when that person has no biological or legal parental connection to the child.
Holding
No, because Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks the equitable power to create a parental obligation for child support purposes where no such obligation exists under the law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, possessing only the powers granted to it by statute or the State Constitution. The Court emphasized that Family Court has no general equity jurisdiction and cannot grant equitable relief. The Court analyzed Family Court Act § 413 (1) (a), which states that “the parents of a child…are chargeable with the support of such child.” The Court noted that “parent” typically denotes more than responsibility for conception and birth, encompassing natural, adoptive, or legally recognized guardians. The Court found that E.T. had no such legal connection to the child, as she was not a biological parent, adoptive parent, or legal guardian. Allowing the Family Court to compel child support in this situation would be an unauthorized exercise of equitable power. The dissent argued that the majority’s reading of Article 4 was too broad and inconsistent with the Family Court’s limited subject matter jurisdiction.