Mary Roe v. John Doe, 29 N.Y.2d 188 (1971)

CASE: Woman, 20, sues her father after he refuses to continue supporting her.

FACTS: Mary Roe, 20, the daughter of "a prominent New York attorney," took up residence with a female classmate at the University of Louisville, where she went to school. Her father had forbidden her from moving out of the college dormitory. She moved without his knowledge and counter to his instructions. Upon learning of this deception, the father cut off all further support from his daughter and told her to return to New York. She ignored him, selling the car he had purchased for her and living off the proceeds. She fell into academic probation (but fought her way back), experimented with LSD and marijuana. She sued for support; the trial court ordered the father to require the father to remit a tuition payment for the then-pending semester and to provide for reasonable medical, dental, eye and psychiatric care and a order of support requiring the father to pay $250 per month in support for the period from the time he cut her off until she turned 21. The A year later, the father was found to have willfully failed to comply with the first order and ordered to spend 30 days in jail (which was vacated). He appealed. The Appellate Division directed that the father pay only those university and health bills actually rendered prior to November 30, 1970

QUESTION: Does a parent have the duty of continuing support when his or her minor child of employable age and in full possession of her faculties, voluntarily and without cause abandons the parent's home, against the will of the parent, and for the purpose of avoiding parental control?

COURT SAYS: Affirms Appellate Division (finding for the father).

HOLDING: Where a minor child of employable age and in full possession of her faculties voluntarily and without cause abandons the parent's home against the will of the parent and for the purpose of avoiding parental control, she forfeits her right to demand support.

RATIONALE:

  • The child's right to support and the parent's right to custody and services are reciprocal: the father in return for maintenance and support may establish and impose reasonable regulations for his child.
  • To hold otherwise would be to allow a minor of employable age to deliberately flout the legitimate mandates of her father while requiring that the latter support her in her decision to place herself beyond his effective control.
  • In ordering the father to continue support, the family court substituted its judgment for that of the father, an unwarranted intrusion.
  • The father was no unreasonable in his insistence of her residing in the dormitory.

CONCURRING OPINION: The Family Court was without power to intervene in this case, in which the health or welfare of the child was not at issue (she was not in grave harm).


T O P