In a decision that should come as a relief to those who are unfortunately suffering from a terminal illness, the court in NJ has ruled that the mere existence of the illness is not by itself a basis to change child custody.
In a case of first impression, a New Jersey judge has refused to strip a divorced mother of primary custody of her children even though she has terminal and inoperable breast cancer. Read More »
A proposed bill in NJ is attempting to minimize the role of grandparents in the lives of children of divorce. At a time when children need all the support available, this bill just doesn’t make sense.
Bill Would Erect High Hurdles to Grandparents Seeking Visitation
Legislation that would toughen New Jersey’s statutory standards for granting visitation rights to grandparents, and siblings, over parental objections is drawing closer to final passage. The legislation—approved Monday by the Assembly Judiciary Committee—would codify a decade-old state Supreme Court holding that applicants may be granted visitation only if they prove denial would harm the child.
If you have followed this blog, the Facebook page for The Durst Firm, LLC or my twitter posts from @divorcelawyernj you know by now that while I recognize some measure of reform may be necessary to the current NJ alimony statute, I strongly oppose the “reform” bill A3909. The bill is mechanical in its approach, fails to recognize the unique circumstances of each marriage and would serve to undo agreements divorced parties may have entered into years ago. As presently drafted, the bill is unfair and furthers the agenda of a few at the expense of many.
Lawyers come out in force at a legislative hearing to oppose a bill that would abolish permanent alimony and make other drastic changes to New Jersey law on spousal support. Read More »
In order to obtain a domestic violence restraining order under NJ law, the alleged victim must show (1) that the offending party had the intent to commit the underlying act, and (2) that the issuance of a restraining order is necessary for ongoing protection. If the court does not make these specific findings, then as the decision below holds, a restraining order should not be issued.
FAMILY LAW 20-2-1488 A.S. v. R.D., App. Div. (per curiam) (14 pp.) Defendant appeals from a final restraining order (FRO) under the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act obtained by defendant’s former boyfriend. The trial was conducted informally. The court concluded that defendant committed harassment based on the hundreds of text messages she sent the previous fall and two recent text messages. Defendant argues that her actions did not constitute harassment; the court failed to make essential findings that a restraining order was necessary to protect plaintiff, and the court failed to afford defendant an opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff. The appellate panel agrees and reverses. Even absent defendant’s opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff, he failed to present sufficient evidence to support entry of an FRO. The trial court failed to make a finding that defendant acted with a purpose to harass. Her two recent text messages on their face were written to keep plaintiff away. Defendant’s statement about making her presence known did not threaten violence, but apparently signaled an intent to take appropriate action against plaintiff to combat what she perceived to be tortious interference with her career. The statement that she would take pleasure in plaintiff’s misery was gratuitous, but within the scope of “domestic contretemps.” Further, the court failed to make the requisite finding that plaintiff needed the protection of a restraining order.
Under NJ law, divorce parents have an obligation to financially support the children of the marriage until they are emancipated. There is no age at which a child will automatically be declared emancipated and each case needs to be evaluated and decided on an individualized basis. However, the general rule is that if a child moves out of the home to attend college then the child support for that child should be recalculated and most likely reduced. But be careful: as the case summary below describes, the parties eliminated this “automatic” review due to the specific language in their settlement agreement. Without reading the entire settlement agreement I cannot offer an opinion as to the overall reasonableness of the decision but still, it should serve as warning and illustrates the benefits of working with an experienced divorce attorney.
FAMILY LAW 20-2-1516 Gartenberg v. Gartenberg, App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) Defendant appeals from an order denying his application to reduce child support based on his youngest child residing away from plaintiff’s home at college. Defendant argues that the motion judge erred in reading the PSA to preclude a reduction in child support due only to the change in circumstances of his youngest child. Absent the parties’ agreement to the contrary, attendance at college away from home is considered a change of circumstances calling for the recalculation of child support. However, here the parties clearly agreed on what would constitute a change of circumstances. The parents decided that child support would continue until their last unemancipated child graduated from college or was otherwise emancipated, as long as defendant did not lose his job. The appellate panel affirms, agreeing with Judge Tassini’s conclusion that the PSA removes this case from the general provisions controlling modification of child support.
We fight so you don’t have to
