New York Law Review

Tag: H.M. v. E.T.

  • H.M. v. E.T., 14 N.Y.3d 521 (2010): Family Court Jurisdiction Over Same-Sex Partner Support Petitions

    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.

  • H.M. v. E.T., 14 N.Y.3d 521 (2010): Limits on Family Court Jurisdiction to Order Child Support

    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.

  • H.M. v. E.T., 14 N.Y.3d 521 (2010): Family Court Jurisdiction in Same-Sex Parent Support Cases

    14 N.Y.3d 521 (2010)

    Family Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to adjudicate a support petition brought by a biological parent seeking child support from their former same-sex partner, based on an assertion of parentage.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to hear a child support petition filed by a biological mother against her former same-sex partner. The mother, H.M., alleged that she and E.T. planned to conceive and raise a child together. E.T. performed the artificial insemination procedure. After the child’s birth, E.T. ended the relationship. H.M. then sought a declaration of parentage and child support in Canada, which was transferred to Family Court in New York under UIFSA. The Court of Appeals held that Family Court does have subject matter jurisdiction because it has the power to determine support obligations of parents, which includes the authority to determine if the respondent is in fact a parent.

    Facts

    H.M. and E.T. were in a romantic relationship from 1989 to 1995, cohabitating for much of that time. They planned to conceive and raise a child together. In 1993, H.M. became pregnant through artificial insemination, performed by E.T. H.M. gave birth in September 1994, with E.T. present and cutting the umbilical cord. Both parties initially participated in the child’s care. Four months after the birth, E.T. ended the relationship, and H.M. moved to Canada with the child. E.T. provided occasional gifts and monetary contributions after the separation.

    Procedural History

    H.M. filed an application in Ontario, Canada, seeking a declaration of parentage and child support, which was transferred to Family Court, Rockland County, New York, under UIFSA. The Family Court Support Magistrate dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Family Court reversed, ordering a hearing on equitable estoppel. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the dismissal. H.M. appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Family Court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a support petition brought pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) by a biological parent seeking child support from her former same-sex partner.

    Holding

    Yes, because Family Court has jurisdiction to determine the support obligations of parents, which inherently includes the authority to ascertain in certain cases whether a respondent is, in fact, a child’s parent.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that Family Court, as the designated UIFSA tribunal in New York, must apply the procedural and substantive law generally applicable to similar proceedings originating in the state. The Court emphasized that Family Court has constitutional and statutory jurisdiction over proceedings to determine the support of dependents (except those incidental to marital actions in Supreme Court). Family Court Act § 413(1)(a) states that “the parents of a child…are chargeable with the support of such child.” The court stated, “Family Court indisputably has jurisdiction to determine whether an individual parent—regardless of gender—is responsible for the support of a child.” Furthermore, statutory jurisdiction carries with it ancillary jurisdiction necessary to fulfill the court’s core function. Because H.M. asserted that E.T. is the child’s parent and therefore chargeable with support, the case falls within Family Court’s Article 4 jurisdiction. The court did not address whether the case also falls under Article 5. The Court rejected the dissent’s argument that Family Court lacks the authority to grant equitable relief necessary to declare E.T. a parent. The court emphasized that Family Court and Supreme Court have coextensive authority over child support matters. The relevant statutes, Family Court Act § 413 and Domestic Relations Law § 240, can be enforced in a manner that does not disadvantage litigants in Family Court.