## Facts

- The parties were married for 20 years and had three children (born 1983, 1986, and 1988).
- The father commenced a divorce action in early 2002; the mother later moved out and asserted a cross-claim for divorce.
- After a nonjury trial, the trial court granted a divorce on stipulation, distributed marital property, awarded the father custody of the two daughters, granted him exclusive ownership and possession of the marital residence, and ordered the mother to pay child support and a share of uninsured medical expenses.
- After the father learned of the mother’s extramarital relationship in December 2001 and told the children, the mother’s relationship with the children deteriorated sharply.
- The trial court found severe and ongoing estrangement, concluding that the father encouraged the children’s intense hostility and exclusion of the mother through conduct intended to cause her serious emotional harm.
- Despite these findings, the trial court declined to suspend child support, reasoning that there was insufficient evidence to legally attribute the children’s hostility to the father’s actions.
- The mother appealed, seeking suspension of her child-support obligation based on the father’s alleged deliberate alienation and interference.

## Issues

1. Whether a noncustodial parent’s child-support obligation may be suspended when the custodial parent deliberately frustrates and actively interferes with the noncustodial parent’s relationship and contact with the children.
2. Whether the record supported modification of the support order to condition relief on the custodial parent’s good-faith efforts to repair the parent-child relationship.

## Decision

- The appellate court modified the judgment to suspend the mother’s child-support obligation pending further court order.
- The court adopted the trial court’s factual findings describing sustained, deliberate interference by the father that nearly eliminated the mother’s relationship, communication, and contact with the children.
- The court held that these findings established the type of egregious interference that permits suspension of child support.
- The suspension was conditioned on future conduct: support could be reinstated if the father demonstrated good-faith efforts to repair the relationship between the mother and the children.
- The court noted there was no showing that suspending support would cause the children to become public charges.
- As modified, the judgment was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Parents have a statutory duty to support their children until age 21, but courts may suspend a noncustodial parent’s support obligation in exceptional cases.
- Child support may be suspended where the noncustodial parent proves the custodial parent deliberately frustrated or actively interfered with the noncustodial parent’s visitation or relationship with the children.
- The interference must be egregious and sustained; ordinary post-divorce conflict or a child’s independent hostility is insufficient.
- Suspension is generally conditional and temporary, serving as a remedial response to ongoing interference rather than a permanent termination of the duty of support.
- A court may consider whether suspension would shift the financial burden to the public.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that extreme, intentional custodial interference that effectively destroys the other parent’s relationship with the children can justify suspending child support, and it suspended the mother’s obligation unless and until the father shows good-faith efforts to restore the mother-child relationship.


Usack v. Usack, 17 A.D.3d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2005)