A New York appellate court has upheld a child support order requiring St. Aubyn Duncan to pay $111.48 per week in child support and $59.77 per week for childcare expenses. The ruling, issued on June 24, 2026, affects Duncan, who is the father of a child born in 2020. The decision is significant as it reinforces the court's ability to impute income to parents based on their potential earnings rather than their current financial situation.
The case, titled Matter of Floyd v. Duncan (Docket No. 2025-09313), originated in the Kings County Family Court. The mother, Monet Floyd, filed a petition in January 2024 seeking to establish paternity and support for their child. The court had already established Duncan's paternity, leading to a support hearing where the magistrate determined Duncan's financial obligations.
The Family Court's order, dated May 27, 2025, mandated that Duncan pay child support and childcare expenses totaling $10,403.07 in retroactive payments. After Duncan objected to the order, claiming that the magistrate improperly imputed income to him, the Family Court denied his objections on July 2, 2025. Duncan subsequently appealed the decision.
The appellate court, consisting of Judges Lara J. Genovesi, Barry E. Warhit, Donna-Marie E. Golia, and Phillip Hom, affirmed the Family Court's ruling. The judges emphasized that a parent's child support obligation is based on their ability to provide support, not merely their current financial situation. They stated, "A parent's child support obligation is determined by his or her ability to provide support, rather than the parent's current financial situation."
The court found that the Support Magistrate acted within her discretion by imputing a full-time minimum-wage income to Duncan. Despite his claims of being unable to work due to injuries, the court noted that Duncan did not prove he was incapable of performing other types of work. The judges also highlighted that the magistrate had the authority to determine childcare expenses based on the custodial parent's income and work status.
The ruling clarified that the Family Court must consider the financial responsibilities of both parents when determining child support and childcare expenses. The court noted, "The Support Magistrate also properly directed the father to pay his pro rata share of the child's daycare and pre-K expenses as a childcare add-on." This reinforces the principle that both parents are responsible for the costs associated with childcare when one parent is working.
The decision is expected to have broader implications for similar child support cases in New York. It underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that child support obligations reflect a parent's potential earnings and ability to contribute to their child's welfare. This ruling may influence how courts handle income imputation in future cases, particularly when one parent claims an inability to work.
As for the future, Duncan has the option to appeal the decision further, although details regarding any potential next steps were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for how child support obligations are assessed, particularly in cases where one parent is not currently employed but has the potential to earn income.