## Facts

- Divorced parents disputed support for their daughter (born 1992).
- The daughter lived with the father in Tennessee until March 2010, when she moved out and began living with her boyfriend.
- The mother, residing in New York, filed a proceeding to terminate her own child-support obligation.
- The mother then filed a modification petition seeking child support from the father, asserting she had assumed financial responsibility for the daughter after the move.
- The father cross-petitioned, claiming the daughter was constructively emancipated because she left to avoid parental control, relieving him of any duty to support her.
- After a hearing, a Support Magistrate found the daughter constructively emancipated and not entitled to support.
- On the mother’s objections, Family Court rejected constructive emancipation, finding the daughter was not emancipated because the mother had been supporting her since the departure, and ordered support from the father.
- The father appealed from Family Court’s order.

## Issues

1. Whether the daughter’s voluntary departure from the father’s home to live with her boyfriend constituted constructive emancipation suspending the father’s support obligation.
2. Whether the father proved the daughter left without sufficient cause, withdrew from his control, and refused to comply with reasonable parental demands.
3. Whether the daughter’s continued financial dependence on the mother defeated the father’s emancipation defense in this support-modification dispute.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed Family Court’s order.
- The court held that the father did not establish that the daughter was constructively emancipated.
- The court sustained Family Court’s determination that the daughter remained financially dependent (supported by the mother) after leaving the father’s home and remained entitled to support from the father.

## Legal Principles

- A parent’s duty to support a child until age 21 may be suspended under constructive emancipation where the child, though not financially self-sufficient, abandons the parent’s home without sufficient cause, withdraws from parental control, and refuses to comply with reasonable parental demands.
- The party asserting constructive emancipation bears the burden to prove each element justifying suspension of support.
- Appellate review gives deference to Family Court’s factual findings and credibility determinations where supported by the record.
- A child’s change of residence and conflict with a parent do not alone establish constructive emancipation; the record must show an unjustified abandonment and rejection of reasonable parental authority.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed continued child support from the father, concluding that constructive emancipation was not proven where the daughter left the father’s home but remained financially dependent on the mother and the evidence did not establish an unjustified abandonment satisfying the doctrine’s elements.


Matter of Jacobi v. Lewis, 92 A.D.3d 1100, 938 N.Y.S.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2012)