Roe v Doe o To hold otherwise would be to allow a minor of employable age to deliberately flout

29 NY 2d 188 | July 7, 1971
Scileppi, J.
Arada, Group 3
Facts:
 Mary Roe: 20 y/o daughter of "a prominent New York attorney,” John Doe (respondent);
student at the University of Louisville
 Roe has been fully supported by her father until April 1970
o Roe took up residence with a female classmate in off-campus apartment despite her
father’s instructions to the contrary and without his knowledge
o Upon learning about Roe’s actions, the father cut off all further support and told Roe
to return to New York, however, she ignored him, selling the car he had purchased
for her and living off the proceeds to finish the school year
o When Roe returned to NY, she opted to reside with a classmates’ parents
o She does not do very well academically and has experimented with drugs; she has
had a difficult childhood – her mother died when she was three and her father has
repeatedly married and remarried since then
 Roe sued for support, alleging that the respondent refused and neglected to provide fair and
reasonable support
o The Family Court first ordered a temporary order of support and later, a final order
of support – father is required to pay $250 per month for the period between the date
of promulgation of the order to Roe’s 21st birthday
 Doe was found to have willfully failed to comply with the first order of temporary support
and was thus ordered to spend 30 days in jail
o He appealed and the Appellate Division modified the temporary order – directed the
father to pay only university and health bills actually rendered prior to the date of
promulgation – and reversed the final order of support
the legitimate mandates of her father while requiring that he 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 which is an unwarranted intrusion
o Doe was not unreasonable in his insistence of her residing in the dormitory; he was
concerned about the various temptations outside of campus, especially in light of her
previous acts
o He has the right to require his daughter to comply with his reasonable demands in the
absence of caprice, neglect, or misconduct
 Comes from his natural right and duty to care for, control and protect his
child from potential harm which the courts should not interfere with absent
a clear showing of misfeasance, abuse, or neglect
 Obligations of parenthood require the child to obey and conform to domestic discipline
o Although minor can freely disagree and abandon parent’s home rather than submit to
what the parent considers to be proper discipline, in doing so, the minor cannot enlist
the aid of the court in frustrating the reasonably exercised parental authority of her
parent by requiring such to accede to minor’s demands

Issue:
 W/N the daughter is entitled support despite her transgressions against her father – NO

Judgment: The order appealed from should be AFFIRMED.

Held:
 “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.”
o Delinquent behavior, in itself, does not generally carry with it the termination of the
duty of a parent to support; however, voluntary abandonment by the child of the
parent’s home is tantamount to forfeiture of the claim to support
 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.