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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
FAMILY LAW<\/strong> 20-2-0110 Wong v. Wong, <\/em>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\u2019 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. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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.\u00a0 In certain situations it is conceivable that the parent of primary residence could still pay … Continue reading