Family Lawyer in Staten Island | Child Support Lawsuit

Approximately twelve years prior to the lawsuit, the client and the former spouse completed an uncontested divorce by mutual agreement.

Custody and parental authority over the minor child were granted to the former spouse, and the client paid a lump sum of approximately USD 60000 at the time of divorce, expressly intended to satisfy child support obligations.

Following the divorce, the parties had no further communication until the former spouse initiated litigation alleging nonpayment of child support throughout the child’s minority.

New York family courts generally recognize the following categories of child support claims.

Current and future child support claims seeking ongoing payments until the child reaches the age of majority

Retroactive child support claims seeking reimbursement for past expenses already incurred by the custodial parent

Modification claims seeking an increase or decrease based on changed circumstances

Enforcement actions for unpaid court ordered child support

Arrears collection actions following an established judgment or order

Each category carries different evidentiary and legal standards, particularly where no prior court order exists.

Under New York law, claims for retroactive child support do not accrue or run while the child remains a minor unless the obligation has been reduced to a specific court order or agreement.

Where no judicial determination exists, the statute of limitations generally begins upon the child reaching the age of majority.

Courts also closely scrutinize whether a retroactive claim constitutes an abuse of rights when substantial time has passed and prior financial arrangements were knowingly accepted.

The legal team secured and submitted the original divorce agreement, bank transfer records, and contemporaneous documentation confirming payment of the lump sum child support.

These materials demonstrated that the parties mutually intended the payment to resolve child support obligations in full.

The court accepted this evidence as credible and contemporaneous proof that no unpaid support existed.

The claimant asserted that the lump sum constituted spousal maintenance rather than child support.

The defense countered by establishing shared responsibility for the marital breakdown and demonstrating that the payment structure aligned with child support intent rather than fault based compensation.

The court further found persuasive the argument that filing a retroactive claim shortly before the child’s adulthood suggested an improper financial motive rather than genuine reimbursement.