NY court overturns ruling on which state law should govern a child support order

ROCHESTER, NY — The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, has overturned a lower court ruling regarding which state law should govern a child support order.

When Maria S. Brooks and Benjamin S. Brooks were divorced in New Jersey in 2011, they agreed that, regardless of where they lived in the future, their separation agreement would be interpreted under New Jersey law.

Both parents and their children subsequently moved to New York state. In 2016, Maria Brooks went to court to have the child support order modified by a support magistrate. But the magistrate actually reduced the support payments by calculating the amount based on New Jersey law.

The mother filed objections claiming that New York law should govern that calculation and that she also is entitled to attorney’s fees. In August 2017, Ontario County Family Court Judge Stephen D. Aronson denied the objections and ruled that New Jersey law should govern the calculation of the support.

In a decision released April 26, the Fourth Department reversed Aronson and sent the case back to Family Court.

“At base, the problem is that a New Jersey order and law was applied by a New York tribunal with New York attorneys who are not trained in New Jersey law,” Maria Brooks’ appellate attorney, Margaret M. Reston, told the Fourth Department panel during oral arguments on Jan. 9.

“We agree with the mother that New York law must be applied to determine the father’s child support obligation here,” the Fourth Department wrote.

“The Support Magistrate erred in determining that the choice of law provision in the separation agreement controls over the statute,” according to the decision.

The “choice-of-law” provision in the separation agreement could not be enforced because it violates a fundamental principle of justice, according to the decision.

The Fourth Department’s decision also changed when child support would end. In New Jersey the age is 19, but in New York it’s 21.

Attorney Susan E. Gray, who represented Benjamin Brooks, said a decision hasn’t been made on whether to pursue an appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals.

“This decision gives me pause and concern for the long-held constitutional right of parties to enter into a contract,” Gray said.

“There is a contract in this matter,” she continued. “This wasn’t an order made by a New Jersey court, and then everyone moved to New York state. They agreed to apply New Jersey jurisdiction.”