▶ Video explainer coming soon
The appeals court sided with Lisa and upheld the increased support order. It found the Support Magistrate acted properly by imputing income to Scott. Evidence showed he had a real estate license and worked in that field until 2018, but chose not to look for similar jobs after his employer closed. He applied for jobs he wasn't qualified for instead. The court also ruled the children were not emancipated. Even though they had jobs, Scott didn't prove they no longer relied on their mother for food, housing, and clothing. The court also confirmed Scott's appeal paperwork had been filed on time.
Scott and Lisa Askinazi divorced in 2012. Their agreement set Scott's child support at about $674 a month. In 2017, that amount was lowered to $350 a month, based on Scott reporting only $20,000 in income. In 2020, Lisa asked the court to raise support again. In 2023, Scott asked for support to be lowered further, and also argued the kids were emancipated, meaning legally independent, since they had jobs. A Support Magistrate held a hearing, raised Scott's support to about $592 a month, and denied his request to lower it. Scott then challenged that decision in Family Court, and later appealed further.
Two questions came up. First, was it fair for the court to assign, or 'impute,' income to Scott based on what he could be earning, instead of what he actually reported? Second, did the kids' part-time jobs make them emancipated, meaning Scott no longer owed support for them?
This case shows that courts can base child support on a parent's ability to earn, not just their reported income, especially if that parent stops looking for suitable work. It also shows that a child having a part-time job doesn't automatically end a parent's support duty. The child still needs to be shown as financially independent.
Talk to a licensed family law lawyer in New York.