I cant’ afford my child support payment? What should I do?

Posted on June 23, 2013 by Sandy Durst

In a NJ divorce, both parents have an obligation to financially support the child(ren) of the marriage.  Child support can be calculated utilizing the NJ Child Support Guidelines or the parties can agree to deviate from the Guidelines.  Child support is typically paid to the parent exercising primary residential custody by the other parent.  Once  a child support order has been entered it is critical that the payor spouse do everything possible to satisfy the obligation. The parent of primary residence needs the support to help defray the expenses of the children.  However, situatuons develop that make it difficult, if not impossible, the meet a child support obligation whether it be due to illness, job loss, or other factors which impact the ability to pay.

 

If you find yourself unable to pay your child support obligation, what should you do? Well, you should seek relied from the Court as soon as possible.  Meet with an experienced attorney quickly to review your case and determine if a motion to modify/reduce child support is appropriate.  You should not simply stop paying. You should not rely on your former spouse’s “agreement” to take less or defer receipt of your payments until a later date.  These agreements are not necessarily binding and can lead to additional problems.   Failure to pay child support an lead to wage garnishment, seizure of any tax refunds you may be entitled to receive, the revocation of your drivers license (or any other state issued license), and potentially, incarceration.

 

There is no doubt that the current economy has made paying child support difficult.  If you feel you need relief, take the proper steps and do not engage in self-help.  The attorneys of The Durst Firm have the experience to assist you in your child support matters.

Posted in Durst on Divorce | Tagged , , | Comments Off on I cant’ afford my child support payment? What should I do?

Can a parent with joint legal custody make unilateral decisions affecting the child?

Posted on June 12, 2013 by Sandy Durst

After a divorce, there is often disagreement between the parents as to what is appropriate with regard to the child’s education and religious upbringing.  Under joint legal custody, both parties are to be involved in major decisions including but not limited to education, religious training, and non-emergency medical care.  Even once the spousal bond is dissolved, the parenting relationship survives and is to be respected.  When disagreements arise that cannot be resolved by the parents, the court will make a decision using the “best interests of the child” standard.  There is recognition that the preference of parent of primary residence will be given slightly more weight.

In a recently decided decision, the appellate court found that the mother’s unilateral decision to enroll the child in a parochial school must be scrutinized to make sure that the enrollment was in the child’s best interests.

 

FAMILY LAW 20-2-0186 Phillips v. Emerson, App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Defendant Emerson appeals from the Family Part’s order denying his application to bar his daughter’s attendance at a private parochial high school. During the parties’ marriage, neither the parties nor their children actively practiced their respective religious faiths. Emerson was raised Jewish. Plaintiff Phillips, the child’s mother, was raised in a Christian faith. Until 2012, all of the children attended public schools. In August 2012, Emerson learned that Phillips had enrolled their daughter in a private high school aligned with the Catholic faith. In the parties’ divorce judgment, they were granted joint legal custody of their daughter with mutual obligations to consult and confer regarding major decisions. The appellate panel finds the factual matrix available to the Family Part judge was wholly insufficient and incomplete to warrant a conclusion that the child’s best interests would be fostered by Phillips’s unilateral decision respecting the child’s high school education. The Family Part’s findings and conclusions were not adequately supported by credible evidence. Emerson was entitled to a plenary hearing as to disputed material facts regarding the child’s best interests, and whether those best interests are served by her enrollment in a private parochial high school. The appellate panel reverses and remands to the Family Part for a plenary hearing.  

Posted in Durst Firm News, Durst on Divorce | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Can a parent with joint legal custody make unilateral decisions affecting the child?

Use of prescribed medications while pregnant can lead to a charge of child abuse / neglect

Posted on June 9, 2013 by Sandy Durst

In a case that pits the welfare a pregnant women against the welfare of her newborn child, the Appellate Division recently decided a case in which they affirmed a finding of abuse and/or neglect against a mother for her use of methadone as prescribed  during her pregnancy.  The court found that her use of the medication resulted in an “actual impairment” to the newborn.  The baby experienced withdrawal symptoms and required morphine while in the neonatal intensive care unit of the hospital.  It is tragic that the child was affected by the mother’s use of methadone.  However, one must wonder what would have happened to the child while in utero or after birth had the mother not sought treatment.

 

FAMILY LAW 20-2-0171 New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. Y.N. and P.C., App. Div. (Guadagno, J.S.C., temporarily assigned) (15 pp.) We affirm the finding of abuse or neglect where a newborn suffered severe withdrawal as a result of his mother’s ingestion of methadone during pregnancy. The withdrawal, which lasted 39 days and required numerous doses of morphine and treatment in the neonatal intensive-care unit, was compelling evidence of the “actual impairment” required by the court in New Jersey Department of Children and Families v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1, 22 (2013), to satisfy N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c).

Posted in Durst Firm News, Durst on Divorce | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Use of prescribed medications while pregnant can lead to a charge of child abuse / neglect

Should the custodial parent pay child support?

Posted on June 7, 2013 by Sandy Durst

In most NJ divorce cases where the parties have children, it is the non-custodial parent who pays child support to the parent of primary residence.  In certain situations it is conceivable that the parent of primary residence could still pay child support to the other parent. A recent appellate division case questions such a situation and also relieves a litigant of a responsibility assumed under the terms of a consent order.

 

FAMILY LAW 20-2-0110 Wong v. Wong, App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff appeals from the December 23, 2011 Family Part order denying his motion to terminate his child support obligation for his then seventeen-year-old son, who started living with him in November 2011. The judge concluded that defendant was relieved of the obligation to support her son by virtue of the parties’ consent order. As plaintiff argues, it was grossly inequitable to require him to pay child support, and then from a very meager net salary, to provide all of the support for his son. It was also grossly unfair to the child to be denied the benefit of his mother’s financial resources. The appellate panel therefore reverses the trial court’s order with respect to plaintiff’s obligation to continue to pay child support to defendant after his son came to live with him, and remands for the entry of an order terminating plaintiff’s child support obligation as of the date he filed his motion. On remand, the court shall consider the current circumstances and entertain any further application by either party regarding child support or related financial issues.

Posted in Durst Firm News | Comments Off on Should the custodial parent pay child support?

Employers: provide your employees high quality legal services

Posted on June 4, 2013 by Sandy Durst

As an employer myself, I fully understand the value of having my employees focused on their job.  They perform better which leads to a more profitable business.  Given that the divorce rate is near 50% and the range of other legal issues that can crop up as part of our lives, it is understandable, and to be expected, that your employees will become distracted by legal issues.  The Durst Firm wants to help you, the employer, help your employees.

We are launching an affinity program for employers in Mercer County and the central New Jersey region.  At no cost or obligation to you as the employer, you can make the services of The Durst Firm available to your employees.  As the employer, you will benefit because your employees have qualified legal representation that can handle their needs thereby allowing them to focus on their responsibilities to you.  The employees benefit because as long as they remain employed by an employer who is a member of the program they will receive discounted rates for their divorce/family law needs, wills, real estate matters, and any other services my firm can offer.  We benefit by growing our network of clients and building relationships in the community.

If you would like to learn more about how to make this valuable opportunity available to your employees contact me, Sandy Durst directly at 609-436-9079 x1 or email  at sandy @ thedurstfirm.com

 

 

Posted in Durst Firm News | Comments Off on Employers: provide your employees high quality legal services