« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »
The court affirms the father's conviction for interference with custody and contempt of court, based on the jury's finding that he took his son with the purpose of concealing him and depriving the mother of custody and, in so doing, knowingly disobeyed a pre-existing custody order. State v. Ruutikainen, New Jersey App. Div., November 30, 2005
The dismissal of the grandmother's complaint under the Grandparent Visitation Statute (GVS) [N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1] is affirmed. The trial court is reversed, in its holding that the GVS could not constitutionally be applied to an "intact" family where the parents both opposed visitation. But to justify the potentially unconstitutional burden on parents posed by the process of discovery and trial, a complaint under the GVS must contain clear and specific allegations of concrete harm to the children if visitation is not permitted. In this case, dismissal was appropriate because the complaint did not allege harm to the children, and plaintiff's certification did not allege specific facts from which harm could be inferred. Daniels v. Daniels, ___N.J. Super.___(App. Div. 2005); New Jersey App. Div., 2005 WL 3050597, November 29, 2005
The moral of this case : verify the condition of personal property before signing the divorce agreement. Although plaintiff was dissatisfied with the condition of the Jeep which defendant turned over, the judgment of divorce did not impose the requirement that it be in "pristine condition," as she alleged in her motion. The trial judge properly found that the record contained no coherent information to support either her claim that he "sabotaged" the vehicle, requiring that she expend funds to put it in usable condition, or that he failed to turn over additional personalty. Rieger v. Johanson, New Jersey App. Div., November 28, 2005
Charles C. Abut, Esq. was a Featured Lecturer at the 2005 New Jersey Judicial College, presented by the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts as continuing legal education for the approximately 450 members of the New Jersey judiciary, comprised of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division and the various Trial Courts. Mr. Abut spoke on the Mandatory Mediation programs annexed to the New Jersey court system, as well as on Private Mediation. November 25, 2005
Summary judgment for the plaintiff condominium owner in a Law Division action to eject the defendant ex-girlfriend and denial of her request to transfer the matter to the Family Part, where her palimony action was pending, affirmed. The parties had a long-term romantic relationship. He was her boss and was married to someone else, but had "essentially supported" her since 1983 and had repeatedly promised her that he would get divorced, marry her, and father her child. On the "narrow question" presented, the Law Division correctly concluded that there was not "a scintilla of evidence" that he promised her the condominium. In affirming, the Court discusses Kozlowski, Crowe and Roccamonte, disagreeing that there were sufficient promises to constitute an enforceable contract. The trial court correctly noted that these cases deal with cohabitation and promises of support, not promises of an interest in real estate. L'Esperance, Jr. v. Devaney, New Jersey App. Div., November 23, 2005
The father is ordered to pay $51,630 in arrears due for the parties' son's past college expenses and $11,746.50 for half the current tuition expenses. The court rejects the father's contentions that: (1) he is not obligated to pay his son's college expenses because it was the son who entered into a contract with the University, not him; (2) the trial judge was biased; (3) he should have to pay less because his son should have gone to a State school; (4) the mother never provided him with evidence of the tuition charges prior to litigation; and (5) he is not able to pay the tuition because it is beyond his financial means. Wolfe v. Balfe, Sr., New Jersey App. Div., November 22, 2005
The father is a lawyer and represented himself. His motion to reduce his child support obligation is denied. Although he now contends that child support should be reduced because it exceeds the Child Support guidelines, he voluntarily agreed to pay the amount ordered, even though he knew of the excess. The judgment of divorce explicitly provides that child support is to be decreased only if a Lepis showing of changed circumstances is made, which has not been done here. Werner v. Werner, New Jersey App. Div., November 21, 2005
The mother was found in violation of litigant's rights for failure to comply with the court-appointed parenting coordinator's directive that she participate in family counseling with the children and for further failure to follow the parenting, visitation and custodial recommendations of that coordinator. She was ordered to use all available means to prevent erosion of the father's parenting time. The coordinator noted that the children needed to find their own voices in the neutral environment counseling could provide. Jorgensen v. Jergensen, New Jersey App. Div., November 18, 2005
The mother attempted to gain custody of the parties' 3 children [all of whom have special needs in the form of autism and other developmental disabilities] stating that defendant was leaving the children with his mother, who was an alcoholic. Where the defense conceded the grandmother's alcoholism, and submitted no legally competent evidence concerning the allegedly improved status of the condition, the judge erred in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing based on his finding that, if the grandmother had an alcohol problem, the parties were aware of it when they agreed to the divorce settlement, and it did not constitute a change of circumstances. Doran v. Doran, New Jersey App. Div. November 16, 2005
The Supreme Court has ruled that parents who disagree with a school system's special-education plan for their child have the legal burden of proving that the plan will not provide the "appropriate" education to which federal law entitles children with disabilities. The 6-to-2 decision affirms a ruling last year by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Schaffer v. Weast, No. 04-698, United States Supreme Court, ___U.S.___ [2005], November 14, 2005.
