Matter of Jacobi v. Lewis
New York Supreme Court
938 N.Y.S.2d 379 (2012)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Jacqueline Jacobi (plaintiff) and Stephen Lewis (defendant) were the divorced parents of three children. Their youngest daughter (the daughter) had been born in 1992. In 2010, the daughter was residing with Lewis. Lewis expected the daughter to attend school, announce the presence of her boyfriend in the home, and abide by a curfew. Instead, in defiance of her father’s rules, the daughter skipped school, snuck her boyfriend into the house, broke curfew, and was arrested. Lewis tried to ground the daughter to enforce his house rules. In mid-March 2010, the daughter left the house without her father’s permission or knowledge, causing Lewis to file a missing-persons report. Juvenile services returned the daughter home, but two days later, she left again to move in with her boyfriend. Lewis placed some of the daughter’s belongings outside per her request but did not prevent her from moving back home. Thereafter, Jacobi sought child support from Lewis for the daughter. Lewis, in turn, claimed that the daughter’s emancipation relieved him of any support obligation. Lewis testified to the undisputed events that had occurred. The family court decided that the daughter was not emancipated because she was still being financially supported by Jacobi and thus was entitled to child support from her father. Lewis appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peters, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.