X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=46415 Judge Kohout A SUPPORT MAGISTRATE (SM) declared respondent father in default after failing to respond to documents mailed to him in San Diego, Calif., in connection with the mother’s petition for increased child support. The court ruled that the SM missapplied Family Court Act �443 by improperly considering the petition to be a “subsequent proceeding” rather than a new action, thus obviating compliance with notice and service requirements of FCA ��426 and 427. Observing that FCA �443′s notice-by-mail provisions vary significantly from those in the Social Security Act, the court, citing Zivkovic v. Zivkovic, noted that �443′s ordinary mail notice provisions do not comport with due process standards for child support actions. Finding that FCA Article 4 treats a modification petition as a separate action, the court concluded that petitioner was required to file a new, separate action, which, under FCA �426, required issuance of a new summons and service on respondent in a manner permitted by FCA �427.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.