Pendente Lite Support in a 50/50 Custody Divorce

In W.L.F. v. G.T.F., decided March 10, 2026, Justice Jeffrey Sunshine of Kings County Supreme Court issued a detailed pendente lite decision that speaks directly to a recurring issue in modern New York divorce cases: what happens when parents have equal parenting time, but one spouse earns substantially more than the other?

The decision is especially useful for New York City professionals, high earners, and parents in shared custody arrangements because it rejects the common assumption that 50/50 parenting time automatically means no child support. It also addresses issues that appear frequently in complex matrimonial cases: alleged underemployment, career pivots after job loss, private school tuition, trust discovery, add-on expenses, and interim counsel fees.

The background: equal custody, unequal income

The parties were married in 2009 and had two children, ages thirteen and eleven. During the divorce, they resolved custody by entering into a final custody and access agreement providing for joint legal custody and 50/50 shared residential custody. That did not end the financial dispute. The wife sought to require the husband to pay 50% of the children’s add-on expenses, including private school tuition, unreimbursed health care, and extracurricular expenses. The husband cross-moved for pendente lite child support, add-on contributions, and interim counsel fees.

The wife earned approximately $700,000 in 2024. The husband had previously worked in senior technology roles but lost his job in 2021 and later transitioned into executive coaching and consulting. The wife argued that he was voluntarily underemployed and that income should be imputed to him based on his education, prior work history, and alleged access to family trust assets. The husband argued that he made a serious job search, applied to more than seventy companies, networked extensively, and pivoted only after failing to obtain comparable employment.

50/50 custody does not eliminate child support in New York

One of the most important holdings is that equal parenting time did not prevent an award of pendente lite child support. The court found that because the wife was the monied spouse, the husband was treated as the “de facto” custodial parent for purposes of temporary child support. The court therefore required the wife to pay pendente lite basic child support to the husband, notwithstanding the parties’ true 50/50 parenting schedule.

That is a critical point for New York divorce clients. Shared physical custody does not automatically erase the Child Support Standards Act. When there is a meaningful income disparity, the higher-earning parent may still be required to pay support so that the children’s needs are met in both homes. The legal question is not whether each parent has equal time on paper. The question is how New York’s child support formula applies to the parties’ current financial circumstances.

Here, the court used the wife’s adjusted income of $652,212.92 and the husband’s conceded 2025 income of $92,000. Applying the statutory cap of $193,000 for two children, the court calculated the wife’s pro rata share at 87.64% and ordered her to pay $3,523.78 per month in basic pendente lite child support, plus retroactive support arrears.

The court refused to impute income prematurely

Justice Sunshine declined to impute income to the husband pendente lite, despite the wife’s claim that his career change was a divorce-driven attempt to suppress income. The court emphasized that imputation of income, vocational expert testimony, and allegations of underemployment were issues for trial, where the parties could testify, cross-examine witnesses, and present expert proof.

This part of the decision is important because many litigants assume that prior earnings control temporary support. They do not. Prior income matters, but it is not automatically dispositive, especially where the allegedly underemployed spouse presents documentation of a genuine job search and a non-frivolous explanation for reduced income. The court made clear that the wife could still pursue imputation at trial, and any final award could be retroactive, but the record was not sufficiently developed to make that finding at the temporary stage.

Trust assets: discovery first, imputation later

The wife also argued that the husband had access to significant family trust assets. The court ordered full disclosure of the trust, recognizing that the wife had raised enough questions to justify discovery. But the court refused to impute income or financial access from the trust before discovery was complete. The court noted that the wife herself admitted there were unresolved questions about the trust’s value and the husband’s ability to access it.

That is a disciplined approach. In high-net-worth divorce cases, trusts are often central to support, equitable distribution, and counsel fee disputes. But suspicion is not proof. A spouse may be entitled to discovery without being entitled to an immediate support ruling based on unproven access to trust funds.

Private school tuition stayed 50/50 for now

The children had attended private school since pre-kindergarten, with annual tuition of approximately $126,000. The wife wanted either a 50/50 tuition split or a transition to public school if the husband would not keep paying half. The husband wanted the children to remain in their private school, arguing that their lives had already been disrupted by the divorce and sale of the marital residence. Pending a final hearing on educational decision-making and financial issues, the court directed the parties to continue sharing private school tuition equally, subject to reallocation after trial.

This reflects how courts often handle status quo expenses for children during a divorce. The court may preserve the children’s routine temporarily while reserving the right to reallocate the financial burden after a full record is developed.

Counsel fees and the “monied spouse”

The court awarded the husband $20,000 in interim counsel fees. Even though both parties had substantial assets from the sale of the marital residence, the wife’s current income was vastly higher. Justice Sunshine rejected the idea that the husband had to deplete marital sale proceeds before receiving a counsel fee award. Under Domestic Relations Law § 237, the purpose of interim fees is to level the playing field, and a party need not be indigent to qualify.

Practical takeaway for NYC divorce clients

W.L.F. v. G.T.F. is a strong reminder that pendente lite relief is practical, temporary, and evidence-sensitive. Equal parenting time does not eliminate support. Alleged underemployment must be proven, not assumed. Trust allegations may justify discovery but not premature imputation. Private school status quo may be preserved pending trial. And the higher-earning spouse may be required to contribute to counsel fees even where both parties have assets.

For New York City divorce, this decision shows why strategy must be built around current income, documentation, lifestyle, children’s needs, and what can actually be proven at each stage of the case. If you are facing a high-income divorce, a 50/50 custody support dispute, private school expense conflict, or trust-related financial disclosure issue, contact Mindin & Mindin, P.C. for a confidential matrimonial consultation.