New York Assembly Bill A08296

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/12/25
• Refer: 5/12/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Relates to recurring payments to the non-custodial parent in special circumstances in child support proceedings involving joint or shared custody of children.

Summary

This bill amends the Family Court Act and the Domestic Relations Law to authorize a court, in limited child support cases involving joint or shared custody, to order the custodial parent to make recurring payments to the non-custodial parent and/or to third parties for the child’s benefit while the child is in the non-custodial parent’s care. The authority applies only when the child is not receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the court makes written findings that the non-custodial parent has substantial parenting time, the custodial parent has significantly greater income or assets, the non-custodial parent cannot otherwise meet the child’s basic needs during that parenting time, the payment is necessary for those needs, the custodial household can still meet the child’s basic needs, and the arrangement is in the child’s best interests. The bill also provides that these payments are treated as child support for enforcement purposes and as income to the non-custodial parent. In addition, after calculating the reciprocal support obligations, the court may offset the smaller payment against the larger one so that only one payment is made. The bill would take effect 90 days after becoming law.

Impact

The bill would create a new, explicit child-support mechanism in both the Family Court Act and the Domestic Relations Law for shared-custody situations where the non-custodial parent needs financial support during parenting time. It would expand judicial discretion by allowing courts to order support flowing from the custodial parent to the non-custodial parent under narrowly defined circumstances, and it would affect enforcement, income calculations, and the practical administration of child support orders in qualifying cases.

Sentiment

There is limited recorded debate or voting history available for this bill, so no clear partisan or public sentiment can be inferred from committee transcripts or floor votes. Based on the text, the bill appears designed to address a perceived fairness gap in shared-custody child support cases, suggesting a policy intent that may be broadly framed as child-centered and equitable. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided materials means the overall sentiment is best characterized as unclear but procedurally neutral at this stage.

Contention

The main points of contention likely concern whether courts should be authorized to require the higher-income custodial parent to pay the other parent, how to define and prove “substantial parenting time” and “far greater income and/or assets,” and whether such orders could create administrative complexity or disputes over enforcement and income attribution. Another likely issue is the bill’s safeguard that the custodial household must still have sufficient funds to meet the child’s basic needs, which may be viewed as necessary protection by supporters and as a potentially subjective standard by critics. Because no transcripts or votes are provided, specific named opponents or supporters cannot be identified.