New Jersey Family Law

SUMMIT NEW JERSEY UNION COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER

The divorce settlement talks began more than three years ago, not long after New Jersey's most famous gay American came out of the closet. Back then, friends close to former Gov. James E. McGreevey and his estranged wife, Dina Matos McGreevey, depicted the discussions as discreet -- which is pretty much the last time anything related to McGreevey vs. Matos McGreevey has been described as either of those things. On Tuesday, after 3 years of failed negotiations, insults, and nonstop bickering over everything from Barnes & Noble parking lots to pony rides, the McGreevey divorce finally went to trial. Legal analysts expect New Jersey's former first couple will approach new lows, even for divorce court. "I'm not going to tell you this is going to be the worst case ever in the history of New Jersey divorces," said Charles Abut, a New Jersey matrimonial lawyer. "But I think if you asked longtime matrimonial lawyers, 'Give me the top 10 worst,' this one is going to appear on everyone's list."  The Star Ledger, May 5, 2008

CLIFFSIDE PARK BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

On appeal, the defendant ex-wife sought the recusal of the New Jersey divorce judge. The Appellate Division concluded the judge improperly declined to require plaintiff to submit his current financial information in deciding defendant's motion and erroneously denied defendant's request for reimbursement of tutoring expenses. Moreover, the judge demonstrated such a significant degree of animus and impatience towards defendant that the remand proceedings must take place before a different judge.       Isaacson v. Isaacson, New Jersey App. Div., April 29, 2008

CRANFORD UNION COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER CUSTODY MEDIATION

The expert’s unopposed report provided the New Jersey divorce judge with sufficient credible evidence to conclude the best interests of the children would be served by continuing them in the custody of the father and not requiring them to have contact with the mother, until such time as they were emotionally able and willing to do so. With that custody adjudication in place, the judge’s decision to terminate the abuse and neglect litigation was a proper exercise of discretion.     New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. M.O., New Jersey App. Div., April 28, 2008

KEARNY HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY

The New Jersey divorce judge denied the ex-husband's motion to modify his support obligation under the parties’ settlement agreement. Because he did not establish a prima facie case of a material change in circumstances, the decision is affirmed. The unemployment in question was temporary and the ex-wife’s mere attainment of a master’s degree did not justify the imputation of income to her.     Davidson v. Davidson, New Jersey App. Div., April 25, 2008

BUTLER MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY MEDIATION

Because it is interlocutory, this appeal is dismissed. The trial court’s order did not finally resolve all of the issues raised. Rather, it merely deferred determination of those issues until after a 60-day period of additional consultation with a Parenting Coordinator regarding parenting time with their child. The matter is remanded to the New Jersey divorce judge for further proceedings.    Kalra v. Prasad, New Jersey App. Div., April 23, 2008

CLIFTON PASSAIC COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY VISITATION MEDIATION

A change in a child’s age is a change in circumstance that alone can warrant a change in court-ordered visitation. However, a plenary hearing should generally be ordered if the terms of visitation are disputed and a hearing would assist the court in resolving the issues presented. Nevertheless, there is no absolute right to a plenary hearing.       Swicinski v. Maul, New Jersey App. Div., April 21, 2008

ESSEX FELLS ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY ALIMONY LAWYER

Where a well-educated, capable litigant has refused to find suitable employment to meet his child support obligations, income should be imputed to him in accordance with his ability to earn income consistent with his education and skills. Voluntary underemployment should be disregarded in calculating support and arrearages. However, in calculating arrears, the court should take into account a lump sum payment apparently made by him to avoid incarceration.    KhatKhat v. Hussein, New Jersey App. Div., April 18, 2008

ALLENDALE BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

The mother moved to vacate a child support order, entered without notice to her, in which the court reduced the father's support obligation. She was attending nursing school full time, could only briefly work a part-time job because of taking care of the parties' 4 children, and was only able to afford a one-bedroom apartment for herself and the children. In denying the motion to vacate, the trial court simply stated that it was untimely. But under New Jersey Rule 4:50-1, the motion should have been granted since no prejudice was claimed or shown by the ten-month delay in bringing the motion and there was no proof of service of the summary action.    Odionu v. Enekebe, New Jersey App. Div., April 16, 2008

GUTTENBERG HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER MEDIATION

How long was the New Jersey divorce opinion? 110 pages. No wonder that the Appellate Division had no difficulty in affirming. The parties contested virtually everything -- including custody of the 5 youngest of their 7 children, child support, alimony, equitable distribution, counsel fees and whether plaintiff would be permitted to relocate to New York. The trial judge's findings were detailed because of the likelihood "this case [would] have a long exposure in the courts well after [his] decision [was] rendered." The decision provided background information on the marriage, the procedural history of the case, and defendant's abuse of alcohol, and thoroughly analyzed each of the disputed issues.   Haddad v. Haddad, New Jersey App. Div., April 14, 2008

UNION TOWNSHIP UNION COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

After the parties' New Jersey divorce, the father moved to lower his child support, due to his reduced finances. The mother opposed the motion, in part based on the anti-Lepis clause in their New Jersey divorce agreement. The court holds that the clause in question is still fair, there were no unforeseen or extreme circumstances and therefore modification was not in order. In fact, the application was denied without either an exchange of financial information or a plenary hearing. Finally, the mother had agreed to accept a lower support amount, specifically in consideration.    Sullivan, etc. v. Sullivan, New Jersey App. Div. April 11, 2008