## Facts

- The Oswego County Department of Social Services, acting on behalf of the children’s custodial grandmother, sought a child-support order against the children’s mother for support of the older child living with the grandmother.
- The mother had custody of two younger children and lived entirely on public assistance; the hearing examiner found her annual income was effectively $0.
- The agency relied on N.Y. Family Court Act § 413(1)(g), which required a nonwaivable minimum child-support obligation of $25 per month, up to an accumulated debt of $500.
- The hearing examiner set the mother’s support obligation at $0 based on her lack of income.
- Family Court rejected the agency’s objection and left the obligation at $0.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding the federal Child Support Enforcement Act preempted the state’s conclusive $25 minimum.
- The New York Court of Appeals granted review as of right on constitutional grounds; the Attorney General intervened in support of the state statute.

## Issues

1. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 667, requiring child-support guidelines to operate as a rebuttable presumption, preempts N.Y. Family Court Act § 413(1)(g)’s conclusive $25-per-month minimum support floor.
2. Whether a court must be permitted to set a support order at $0 for an indigent obligor when impoverished circumstances warrant deviation from guideline amounts.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed.
- It held that N.Y. Family Court Act § 413(1)(g) was preempted by 42 U.S.C. § 667 to the extent it imposed an irrebuttable $25 minimum in all cases.
- Because federal law requires an opportunity in every case to rebut the guideline amount and reduce support to $0 when justified, the state statute’s mandatory floor directly conflicted with federal requirements.
- The court rejected the argument that the $25 minimum could be treated as merely symbolic or unenforced in practice; the legal obligation and its consequences created the conflict.
- The $0 support order was upheld given the finding that the mother’s income was effectively zero.

## Legal Principles

- Federal law preempts state law when the two directly conflict and cannot be reconciled.
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 667, state child-support guidelines must create a rebuttable presumption that the guideline amount is correct, subject to case-specific deviation when unjust or inappropriate.
- A state may not impose an irrebuttable minimum child-support floor that prevents a court from setting support at $0 for an indigent obligor when the evidence warrants it.

## Conclusion

The New York Court of Appeals held that federal child-support guideline requirements preempted New York’s nonwaivable $25 minimum support provision because federal law requires a rebuttable presumption permitting a $0 order in appropriate cases of poverty, and the mother’s obligation was properly set at $0.


Rose on Behalf of Clancy v. Moody, 83 N.Y.2d 65 (N.Y. 1993)