Barlow v. Barlow, 112 A.D.3d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Barlow v. Barlow, 112 A.D.3d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
65 citation events (65 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Pontillo v. Pearce, 2026 NY Slip Op 02840 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014 2020 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 818 Determining constructive emancipation and parental support obligations11 citing cases“malfeasance, misconduct, neglect, or abuse”4 citing courts quote it · 10 listed here
  • Matter of Pontillo v. Pearce, 2026 NY Slip Op 02840 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published 9 cites
    A child's mere reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment'" ( Matter of Langenhahn v Langenhahn , 241 AD3d at 552, quoting Matter of Barlow v Barlow , 112 AD3d 817, 818). "[W]here it is the parent who causes a breakdown in communication…
  • Matter of Drake v. Drake, 185 A.D.3d 1382 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2020).published
    In any event, that contention lacks merit because the mother failed to demonstrate that the child actively abandoned her by refusing all contact and visitation ( see Matter of Barlow v Barlow , 112 AD3d 817, 818 [2d Dept 2013]; Matter of B…
  • Matter of Jones v. Jones, 2018 NY Slip Op 2966 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2018).published
    Contrary to the AFC's contention, the record does not support the conclusion that the daughter was justified in refusing all contact with the father based upon his conduct ( see Matter of Chamberlin v Chamberlin , 240 AD2d 908, 910 [3d Dep…
  • Onondaga Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. ex rel. I.V. v. K.S., 55 Misc. 3d 1121 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 2017).published
    (Matter of Barlow v Barlow, 112 AD3d 817, 818 [2013]; Melgar v Melgar, 132 AD3d 1293 [2015].) Parental acts or omissions such as neglect, malfeasance, or a child’s justifiable refusal to maintain contact with a parent shall not be consider…
  • Matter of Addimando v. Huerta, 147 A.D.3d 750 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    “A child’s mere reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment” (Matter of Barlow v Barlow, 112 AD3d 817, 818 [2013]). “[Furthermore], where it is the parent who causes a breakdown in communication with his [or her] child, or has made no se…
  • O'Rourke v. O'Rourke, 139 A.D.3d 1027 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
    “It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents [of minor children] are responsible for their children’s support until age 21” (Matter of Gold v Fisher, 59 AD3d 443, 444 [2009]; see Family Ct Act § 413; Matter of Barlow v Barlow,…
  • Melgar v. Melgar, 132 A.D.3d 1293 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2015).published 2 cites
    The burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it (see Matter of Barlow v Barlow, 112 AD3d 817, 818 [2013]).
  • Matter of Lew v. Sobel, 120 A.D.3d 1418 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published
    “It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents are responsible for their children’s support until age 21” (Matter of Barlow v Barlow, 112 AD3d 817, 818 [2013]; see Matter of Gansky v Gansky, 103 AD3d 894, 895 [2013]; Schulman v…
  • Matter of Monti v. DiBedendetto, 151 A.D.3d 864 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    Under the doctrine of constructive emancipation, where “a minor of employable age and in full possession of [his or] her faculties, voluntarily and without cause, abandons the parent’s home, against the will of the parent and for the purpo…
  • Matter of Brinskelle v. Widman, 137 A.D.3d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published 2 cites
    Under the doctrine of constructive emancipation, where “a minor of employable age and in full possession of [his or] her faculties, voluntarily and without cause, abandons the parent’s home, against the will of the parent and for the purpo…
Other citing cases7 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of David N. Barlow
v.
June Barlow
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 18, 2013.
Published opinion
112 A.D.3d 817
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published

[*818] In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Watson, J.), dated December 4, 2012, which, after a hearing, denied his petition to terminate his child support obligation on the ground of constructive emancipation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Family Court properly denied the father’s petition to terminate his child support obligation on the ground of constructive emancipation. It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents are responsible for their children’s support until age 21 (see Matter of Gansky v Gansky, 103 AD3d 894 [2013]; Schulman v Schulman, 101 AD3d 1098 [2012]; Matter of Glen L.S. v Deborah A.S., 89 AD3d 856 [2011]). However, under the doctrine of constructive emancipation, a child of employable age who actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and visitation may forfeit any entitlement to support. A child’s mere reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment (see Matter of Grucci v Villanti, 108 AD3d 626 [2013]; Schulman v Schulman, 101 AD3d 1098 [2012]; Matter of Turnow v Stabile, 84 AD3d 1385 [2011]). Furthermore, where it is the parent who causes a breakdown in communication with the child, or has made no serious effort to contact the child and exercise his or her visitation rights, the child will not be deemed to have abandoned the parent (see Schulman v Schulman, 101 AD3d 1098 [2012]; Matter of Glen L.S. v Deborah A.S., 89 AD3d 856 [2011]; Matter of Dewitt v Giampietro, 66 AD3d 773 [2009]). A breakdown may be caused by conduct such as malfeasance, misconduct, neglect, or abuse (see Matter of Wiegert v Wiegert, 267 AD2d 620 [1999]). A child’s justified refusal to continue a relationship due to such conduct by a parent will not be considered self-emancipation (see Labanowski v Labanowski, 49 AD3d 1051 [2008]). The burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it (see Schulman v Schulman, 101 AD3d 1098 [2012]; Matter of Glen L.S. v Deborah A.S., 89 AD3d 856 [2011]; Matter of Turnow v Stabile, 84 AD3d 1385 [2011]).

Here, the father failed to satisfy his burden of showing that the subject child had actively abandoned him, such that the child had forfeited any entitlement to support. The record demonstrates that it was the father who caused the breakdown in communication with the child, through his misconduct toward the mother and the child, and that the child justifiably refused to continue the relationship. Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s petition to terminate his child support obligation on the ground of constructive emancipation. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.