Deadbeat Dads Given New Life in New York

Many parents abandon their children, leaving them to be raised by the other parent or a third party, refusing to have meaningful contact with them or even to provide financial support. The remaining parent or caregiver may make attempts to bring the uninterested parent back into the child's life, or to force him or her to pay child support, but these efforts are often unsuccessful. So, what's to be done? The caregiver may be forced to give up and raise the child alone, perhaps gaining some comfort in knowing that the recalcitrant parent at least will not interfere in the child's life. But, is this necessarily the end of the story? As evidenced by a case holding last month, delivered by the Appellate Division, Third Department in a Workers' Compensation case, in New York at least, the missing parent can still cause trouble, even years after the child has reached majority.

Facts of the Case

The case, Caldwell v. Alliance Consulting Group Inc., 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3700 (4/1/04), involved the question of who was entitled to receive Workers' Compensation benefits after an adult man, raised for most of his life solely by his mother, died intestate as a result of the attacks on the World Trade Center. The undisputed facts of the case established that the decedent's father, Leon W. Caldwell, voluntarily left the marital home in New Jersey when decedent was just over a year old, relocating to Philadelphia. Thereafter, the decedent had contact with his father on only two occasions: once when he spent a night at his father's home when he was 6 years old, and once at his maternal grandmother's funeral (the boy and his father did not speak on that occasion). The decedent's mother, Elsie Caldwell (claimant) suggested to Caldwell that he could spend some time with their son, but Caldwell rejected the idea.

Although claimant sought and was awarded support for the two children she had with Caldwell, he never sent her any payments, eventually accumulating arrears of over $20,000. Claimant was forced to support her children alone, working at a series of jobs while trying to further her education, and sometimes being forced to go on public assistance to support herself and her children. In the end, she was able, on her own, to send both her sons through college. Decedent's brother even earned a doctorate degree.

At the time of decedent's death, he was unmarried and had no dependents. Thus, his next of kin under the law were his parents. His mother filed a claim for the $50,000 death benefit provided by Workers' Compensation Law ' 16(4)(b). His absentee father then intervened in the claim, seeking half the benefit. Following a hearing and the submission of written legal arguments, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge directed the payment of $25,000 to claimant and $25,000 to Caldwell. The Workers' Compensation Board modified the order only to the extent of holding Caldwell's payment in abeyance pending a determination of whether he owed arrears for the child support, under Workers' Compensation Law ' 33.

The Appeal

The case was appealed to the Third Department, which framed the relevant question as this: In this case of statutory construction, was the Workers' Compensation Board correct in interpreting the term “parent” in Workers' Compensation Law ' 16(4-b) as meaning simply the biological father and mother of a child, or, as claimant urged, should the court have employed a conditional interpretation of the word “parent” that would revoke statutory parental rights of parents who'd had no involvement in their children's lives? The Workers' Compensation Law itself contains no definition for the word “parent,” and the court found that there was nothing in the law to indicate that the state legislature intended the meaning of that term to vary from the obvious and commonly accepted definitions. The appellate court, therefore, looked to the definition found in Black's Law Dictionary to find that the Workers' Compensation Board's interpretation was sound as a matter of pure statutory construction because it comported with the plain meaning of the word “parent.” The majority opinion was written by Justice Rose and joined by Justices Crew III, Spain and Mugglin.

The lone dissenter, Justice Lahtinen, quoting People ex rel. Beaman v. Feitner, 168 N.Y. 360, 61 N.E. 280 (1901), pointed out that it has long been axiomatic in New York that “the legislature is presumed to have intended to do justice, unless its language compels the opposite conclusion.” Judge Lahtinen opined that justice “is not fostered by rewarding in any fashion a parent who purposefully fails to provide any emotional, nurturing and/or financial support to a child. It has been the concerted policy of this state ' and, indeed, the nation ' to attempt to require responsible conduct by individuals who procreate and not to allow a dividend to flow from dereliction … Thus, while the legislature provided little elucidation in the specific relevant subdivision of the Workers' Compensation Law, it has spoken strongly and consistently in opposition to interpretations or schemes that award those who abandon their obligations to their children.” For instance, under New York's intestacy laws, a parent who abandons a child may not receive any distributive share from a child who dies intestate. (see EPTL 4-1.4). Similarly, such a parent is disqualified from a share of wrongful death proceeds (see EPTL 5-4.4 (a) (2)). In addition, under the common law, the rights of a parent to the services of a child or the child's earnings are linked to the parent's actual support of the child. In the end, Justice Lehtinen declared himself “unpersuaded that the statutory language at issue compels a conclusion contrary to common sense and the well-established policies of this state regarding parenting.”

Conclusion

As with so many things in the arena of family relationships, where seemingly long-settled legal issues can rear their ugly heads years later, the Caldwell case illustrates how family law issues can have effects on other areas of law that the family practitioner and his client may never have dreamed of. Attorneys may warn their clients of the somewhat common problems of absentee parents trying to re-enter their children's lives when, for instance, the caregiver parent has died and named a third party to raise the child or when a child comes into or begins earning substantial sums of money. But the outcome of this case gives those struggling with derelict parent issues just one more example of how those parents can come back to make trouble for a family, even when the child is no longer a child. Although the circumstances of the Caldwell case are somewhat unusual, they are not so unusual that they couldn't occur again. Therefore, it would be wise to add this possible future problem to the list of those you advise clients of when they consider whether to have a “deadbeat parent” judicially declared unfit. Absent a legal severance of all parental authority, the parent who was thought to have disappeared from the child's life may resurface when it suits his or her own best interests, taking rights away from those who've actually earned them.

Many parents abandon their children, leaving them to be raised by the other parent or a third party, refusing to have meaningful contact with them or even to provide financial support. The remaining parent or caregiver may make attempts to bring the uninterested parent back into the child's life, or to force him or her to pay child support, but these efforts are often unsuccessful. So, what's to be done? The caregiver may be forced to give up and raise the child alone, perhaps gaining some comfort in knowing that the recalcitrant parent at least will not interfere in the child's life. But, is this necessarily the end of the story? As evidenced by a case holding last month, delivered by the Appellate Division, Third Department in a Workers' Compensation case, in New York at least, the missing parent can still cause trouble, even years after the child has reached majority.

Facts of the Case

The case, Caldwell v. Alliance Consulting Group Inc. , 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3700 (4/1/04), involved the question of who was entitled to receive Workers' Compensation benefits after an adult man, raised for most of his life solely by his mother, died intestate as a result of the attacks on the World Trade Center. The undisputed facts of the case established that the decedent's father, Leon W. Caldwell, voluntarily left the marital home in New Jersey when decedent was just over a year old, relocating to Philadelphia. Thereafter, the decedent had contact with his father on only two occasions: once when he spent a night at his father's home when he was 6 years old, and once at his maternal grandmother's funeral (the boy and his father did not speak on that occasion). The decedent's mother, Elsie Caldwell (claimant) suggested to Caldwell that he could spend some time with their son, but Caldwell rejected the idea.

Although claimant sought and was awarded support for the two children she had with Caldwell, he never sent her any payments, eventually accumulating arrears of over $20,000. Claimant was forced to support her children alone, working at a series of jobs while trying to further her education, and sometimes being forced to go on public assistance to support herself and her children. In the end, she was able, on her own, to send both her sons through college. Decedent's brother even earned a doctorate degree.

At the time of decedent's death, he was unmarried and had no dependents. Thus, his next of kin under the law were his parents. His mother filed a claim for the $50,000 death benefit provided by Workers' Compensation Law ' 16(4)(b). His absentee father then intervened in the claim, seeking half the benefit. Following a hearing and the submission of written legal arguments, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge directed the payment of $25,000 to claimant and $25,000 to Caldwell. The Workers' Compensation Board modified the order only to the extent of holding Caldwell's payment in abeyance pending a determination of whether he owed arrears for the child support, under Workers' Compensation Law ' 33.

The Appeal

The case was appealed to the Third Department, which framed the relevant question as this: In this case of statutory construction, was the Workers' Compensation Board correct in interpreting the term “parent” in Workers' Compensation Law ' 16(4-b) as meaning simply the biological father and mother of a child, or, as claimant urged, should the court have employed a conditional interpretation of the word “parent” that would revoke statutory parental rights of parents who'd had no involvement in their children's lives? The Workers' Compensation Law itself contains no definition for the word “parent,” and the court found that there was nothing in the law to indicate that the state legislature intended the meaning of that term to vary from the obvious and commonly accepted definitions. The appellate court, therefore, looked to the definition found in Black's Law Dictionary to find that the Workers' Compensation Board's interpretation was sound as a matter of pure statutory construction because it comported with the plain meaning of the word “parent.” The majority opinion was written by Justice Rose and joined by Justices Crew III, Spain and Mugglin.

The lone dissenter, Justice Lahtinen, quoting People ex rel. Beaman v. Feitner , 168 N.Y. 360, 61 N.E. 280 (1901), pointed out that it has long been axiomatic in New York that “the legislature is presumed to have intended to do justice, unless its language compels the opposite conclusion.” Judge Lahtinen opined that justice “is not fostered by rewarding in any fashion a parent who purposefully fails to provide any emotional, nurturing and/or financial support to a child. It has been the concerted policy of this state ' and, indeed, the nation ' to attempt to require responsible conduct by individuals who procreate and not to allow a dividend to flow from dereliction … Thus, while the legislature provided little elucidation in the specific relevant subdivision of the Workers' Compensation Law, it has spoken strongly and consistently in opposition to interpretations or schemes that award those who abandon their obligations to their children.” For instance, under New York's intestacy laws, a parent who abandons a child may not receive any distributive share from a child who dies intestate. (see EPTL 4-1.4). Similarly, such a parent is disqualified from a share of wrongful death proceeds (see EPTL 5-4.4 (a) (2)). In addition, under the common law, the rights of a parent to the services of a child or the child's earnings are linked to the parent's actual support of the child. In the end, Justice Lehtinen declared himself “unpersuaded that the statutory language at issue compels a conclusion contrary to common sense and the well-established policies of this state regarding parenting.”

Conclusion

As with so many things in the arena of family relationships, where seemingly long-settled legal issues can rear their ugly heads years later, the Caldwell case illustrates how family law issues can have effects on other areas of law that the family practitioner and his client may never have dreamed of. Attorneys may warn their clients of the somewhat common problems of absentee parents trying to re-enter their children's lives when, for instance, the caregiver parent has died and named a third party to raise the child or when a child comes into or begins earning substantial sums of money. But the outcome of this case gives those struggling with derelict parent issues just one more example of how those parents can come back to make trouble for a family, even when the child is no longer a child. Although the circumstances of the Caldwell case are somewhat unusual, they are not so unusual that they couldn't occur again. Therefore, it would be wise to add this possible future problem to the list of those you advise clients of when they consider whether to have a “deadbeat parent” judicially declared unfit. Absent a legal severance of all parental authority, the parent who was thought to have disappeared from the child's life may resurface when it suits his or her own best interests, taking rights away from those who've actually earned them.