The father argued that Chelsea had not explained why she waited so long to seek a change in payments.
A New York woman jailed for kidnapping her own child has been given another chance to challenge the child-support payments she owes.According to the case details available on Justia, Chelsea Four-Rosenbaum is serving a seven-year prison sentence after taking her child from the family home and keeping the child's whereabouts hidden from the father and police for nearly two months.While in prison, she asked the court to limit her unpaid child-support debt to $500, arguing that her income was too low. On Thursday, a New York appeals court found that the lower court had not properly considered her argument and ordered a fresh hearing. The court now must first find out whether her income during imprisonment was low enough for the limit to apply.Her original child-support payments had been calculated using her earnings before she went to prison, even though she was already behind bars when the order was issued.Chelsea and her husband, Alexander Four-Rosenbaum, have a child born in 2019. Their dispute took a serious turn in 2021, when Chelsea and the child's maternal grandmother took the child from the family home. They kept the child's whereabouts hidden from Alexander and the police for nearly two months. Chelsea was arrested and charged with second-degree kidnapping and endangering the welfare of a child.After her arrest, Alexander filed for divorce and separately sought child support.
In 2022, a Family Court ordered Chelsea to pay $408.06 every week towards their child's expenses. The amount was based on her income in 2020, before she was imprisoned.Chelsea was later found guilty of both criminal charges following a jury trial. She received a seven-year prison sentence, followed by five years of supervision after her release.
Why Chelsea sought a $500 limit
In 2023, Chelsea returned to court seeking changes to her child-support payments.
She argued that she had little income while in prison and could not afford the amount she had originally been ordered to pay.She asked for her future payments to be reduced and also argued that the unpaid amount from previous months should be limited to $500 because her income had remained below the federal poverty guidelines.Under Section 413(1)(g) of the Family Court Act, unpaid child support above $500 cannot build up during periods when a parent's income is at or below the federal poverty guidelines for a single person.Chelsea also pointed out that Alexander had started the child-support case only after she was arrested.Alexander argued that Chelsea had not given a good reason for waiting so long before asking the court to change the amount she owed.In February 2024, the Sullivan County Supreme Court partly agreed with Chelsea. It reduced her future child-support payments to $25 per month, the minimum amount required under the law.
However, it refused to limit her existing unpaid payments to $500, saying she had not adequately explained why she waited before seeking relief.
Why the appeals court disagreed
Chelsea challenged the refusal, bringing the dispute before New York's Appellate Division, Third Department. The appeals court found that the lower court had focused on the wrong question. It had treated Chelsea's request as an attempt to cancel child-support payments that she already owed.
Under one provision of New York law, courts generally cannot reduce such debt unless the parent can explain why they did not apply for relief earlier.The earlier decision had also considered Chelsea's past work as a litigation attorney, the circumstances of her imprisonment and whether she might receive money or property through the divorce proceedings. The appeals court found that these issues did not answer whether her income qualified her for the $500 limit.Also, although the lower court had accepted that Chelsea's income was below the poverty level when reducing her future payments, it had not established exactly when her income fell below that level or how long it remained there. The $500 limit may apply only to the periods when her income met the conditions set by law.The appeals court has now sent the case back to the Sullivan County Supreme Court. The court must examine Chelsea's income during the months when the unpaid payments accumulated and decide whether the amount needs to be calculated again.