Matter of Petrushka v. Abizadeh, 2021-04373
The Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order dated February 21, 2020, which granted the mother’s petition for a downward modification of her child support obligation. Contrary to the father’s argument, the record supported the Support Magistrate’s determination that the mother’s loss of employment, along with the father’s intentional interference with her earning ability and potential employment opportunities, constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of the mother’s child support obligation (see Matter of Poulos v. Chachere, 163 AD3d 679; Matter of Suyunov v. Tarashchansky, 98 AD3d 744).
Matter of W. (Anonymous), Angelina J., 2020-09573
The father did not establish that his consent to the child’s adoption was required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d) (see Matter of Racal M., Jr. [Racal M.], 172 AD3d at 1069; Matter of Anthony C.M. III [Anthony C.M.], 141 AD3d at 719). The father failed to establish that he provided financial support consistent with his means, nor did he establish that he visited the child monthly when able to or maintained regular communication with the agency when unable to visit the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 111[d]).
Regarding the father’s contentions that the agency failed to inform him of the requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 111(1)(d), they are without merit since the agency was not required to make “diligent efforts…to encourage the father to perform the acts specified in” that section of the DRL.