- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Matter of Jones v. Stewart
- Docket
- 2025-07393
- Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Slip Op
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03307
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03307 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2026)
Background
Whitney Jones commenced a proceeding under Family Court Act article 4 against Ahijah Stewart seeking child support for their child, born in 2018. In an order dated February 20, 2025, the Support Magistrate directed the father to pay basic child support of $161.09 per week commencing September 1, 2025. The Support Magistrate determined that the father had failed to submit competent medical evidence to support his claimed inability to work and accordingly imputed annual income to him based on earnings reflected on his 2022 tax return. The father filed objections to the Support Magistrate’s order, but the Family Court denied those objections. The father, appearing pro se, appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Family Court’s order denying the father’s objections, without costs or disbursements. The court applied the well-established principle that a parent’s child support obligation “is determined by his or her ability to provide support, rather than the parent’s current financial situation,” citing Matter of Askinazi v. Askinazi, 240 AD3d 775.
The court upheld the imputation of income based on the father’s 2022 tax return, noting that courts are not required to “rely upon a party’s own account of his finances” and “may impute income based upon the party’s past income or demonstrated future potential earnings.” Where a party claims inability to work due to illness or injury, the court emphasized that “the party has the same obligation to find some other type of employment, unless that party can demonstrate that he or she is unable to perform other work,” citing Matter of Straker v. Maynard-Straker, 133 AD3d 865.
The court found that the Support Magistrate’s determination that the father failed to submit competent medical proof of inability to work was supported by the record. The father’s receipt of public assistance did not relieve him of his child support obligation. The court also rejected the father’s due process argument regarding any discrepancy between the Support Magistrate’s oral statements and written orders.
Takeaways
This decision reinforces several important principles governing child support determinations in New York. First, courts may impute income to a parent based on past earnings when the parent’s claim of inability to work is not supported by competent medical evidence. Self-serving assertions of disability are insufficient — the parent must submit medical documentation from a qualified professional demonstrating the specific limitations that prevent employment.
Second, receipt of public assistance does not exempt a parent from the obligation to pay child support. The two systems serve different purposes, and eligibility for public benefits does not establish inability to earn income for child support purposes.
Third, pro se litigants in family court proceedings are held to the same evidentiary standards as represented parties. While courts may afford some latitude to pro se parties in procedural matters, the substantive burden of proving inability to work remains the same.
Why It Matters
For parents facing child support proceedings, this case makes clear that claims of disability or inability to work must be supported by objective medical evidence, not merely personal assertions. The court’s willingness to impute income based on prior tax returns ensures that a parent’s current financial circumstances — which may be shaped by voluntary decisions not to work — do not determine the child support obligation. For custodial parents seeking support, the decision provides important authority for challenging claims of inability to pay. For noncustodial parents, the case underscores the need to present robust medical documentation at the hearing level if they seek to reduce or avoid a support obligation based on health limitations.