## Facts

- The mother was the custodial parent of two adopted teenage children; the father was the noncustodial parent subject to a support order of $60 per week per child and entitled to visitation.
- A separation agreement required the mother to (i) disclose serious illnesses to the father, (ii) allow access to school and medical records, and (iii) refrain from acts that would estrange the children from the father.
- Court-related services excused one child from visitation, but the other child was ordered to continue visits.
- Over time, both children refused contact with the father and rejected his attempts at communication.
- The father alleged the mother interfered with visitation and undermined his relationship with the children, including by failing to disclose serious illnesses, denying access to school records, and removing one child to an out-of-state school without consulting him.
- The father sought relief based on the children’s refusal to visit, requesting sanctions and modification of support, including suspension or conditioning of support on visitation.

## Issues

1. Under what circumstances may a noncustodial parent’s child support obligation be suspended, reduced, or conditioned when adolescent children refuse visitation?
2. How should the court allocate responsibility for nonvisitation where the refusal may stem from the custodial parent’s interference, the noncustodial parent’s misconduct, or mixed causes?
3. What effect do a custodial parent’s contractual and court-ordered duties (disclosure, access to records, and protection of the parent-child relationship) have on support modification?

## Decision

- The court held that a child support obligation may be suspended or modified where the custodial parent actively, or effectively, frustrates visitation or materially contributes to the children’s refusal to visit.
- The court rejected an automatic rule that adolescent refusal alone excuses support; the result depends on a fact-specific inquiry into causation.
- The court found the mother failed to comply with obligations to disclose serious illnesses and to provide access to school records.
- The court found the mother’s unilateral removal of the child to an out-of-state school disregarded the father’s visitation rights.
- Based on the mother’s substantial interference and its material contribution to the visitation breakdown, the court granted the father support-related relief by conditioning or suspending support, while remaining attentive to the children’s welfare.

## Legal Principles

- Child support is for the child’s benefit, but a custodial parent’s substantial interference with visitation can justify equitable relief affecting the noncustodial parent’s support obligation.
- A child’s refusal to visit does not, by itself, terminate or excuse support; the court must determine whether refusal is attributable to the noncustodial parent’s harmful conduct or to custodial interference.
- If the noncustodial parent’s conduct makes visitation inimical to the child’s physical or emotional well-being, support remains owed despite nonvisitation.
- Where causation falls in a “grey zone” of conflicting allegations and adolescent hostility, the court must make individualized findings regarding parental responsibility for the breakdown.
- Breaches of separation-agreement duties related to cooperation, disclosure, record access, and avoidance of alienation may support findings of interference and justify support modification.

## Conclusion

The Family Court concluded that support may be conditioned or suspended when a custodial parent substantially frustrates visitation and materially contributes to adolescents’ refusal to see the noncustodial parent, but relief depends on a fact-intensive determination of responsibility and must account for the children’s needs.


In re Catherine W. v. Robert F., 116 Misc. 2d 377, 455 N.Y.S.2d 519 (Fam. Ct. Suffolk Cnty. 1982)