New Jersey Family Law

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE : CHILD NEGLECT

A new mother, who tested positive for HIV during her pregnancy, did not commit an act of abuse or neglect by refusing to take medications prescribed during her pregnancy that could reduce the risk of transmitting that virus to her baby.. The right to make that decision is part of her constitutional right to privacy, which includes her right to refuse medical treatment, even at the risk of her own death or the termination of her pregnancy.   N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Svcs. v. L.V., et al.; I/M/O C.M., ___N.J. Super. ___,(Ch. Div. 2005); New Jersey Chancery Div.. January 3, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE : CONDO SPLIT

Where the money to purchase the condominium was made from a joint account, and the condominium was held in both names prior to the New Jersey divorce, the wife's argument that the condominium was purchased with her premarital assets which she deposited into the joint account and, therefore, exempt from equitable distributions, was properly rejected by the trial court. However, the trial court's reliance on the husband's estimate of the value of the condominium was error.  Nahar v. Nahar, New Jersey App. Div., January 2, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE : TAX REFUND

After the New Jersey divorce, the trial court granted the ex-husband the full income tax refund of $5856 for 2003 instead of dividing it equally. The Appellate Division affirms, finding it was proper to conclude that the ex-husband was entitled to the full refund because he was the only one working during that tax year and because the income used to pay the taxes was generated by him.   Eletto v. Eletto, New Jersey App. Div., December 7, 2005

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE : IMPUTED INCOME

Dad is an attorney who once earned $229,000 per year before the New Jersey divorce. He certified that he had been unemployed since 2003. But the trial court concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish the claim that clinical depression prevented him from obtaining a job comparable to the one he had left. The Appellate Division affirms, finds there was no need for a plenary hearing and upholds the imputation of annual income at $229,000.    Beck v. Beck, New Jersey App. Div., December 6, 2005

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE : DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The trial court erred in finding that the husband harassed his wife when the parties argued about finances. After the police left, the husband came back and told the wife that "he could do more -- do more harm -- more whatever," which she felt was a threat. However, she stayed in the house with him the entire night and did not file her complaint until the next day. The quoted comments are ambiguous, uttered in the emotionally charged atmosphere created by the breakup of the parties' marriage. The fact that the wife did not take immediate action belies her assertion that she felt threatened. There is no evidence to ascribe to the husband's words the sinister meaning found by the trial judge.  Neal v. Neal, New Jersey App. Div. December 5, 2005

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE : ALIMONY MODIFICATION

The ex-wife's application for alimony based on a purported change in circumstances was properly denied. She had become unemployed before the New Jersey divorce was finalized and was then receiving severance pay. But she failed to meet her burden of proving that she acted reasonably, responsibly, and diligently to secure comparable employment appropriate to her education, experience and attainments.    Cukar v. Cukar, New Jersey App. Div., December 2, 2005

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE CUSTODY : IN-STATE MOVE

Order permitting the mother to move from Montgomery Township to Manalapan Township and increasing the father's visitation by a weekend per month is affirmed. The parties' children attended Montgomery Township schools, and the mother, who was the parent of primary residence, sought to move closer to her family. The trial court's analysis of the Baures factors was "unassailable," even though it exceeded what was legally required because the move was in-state. Under Schulze, the Baures factors had to be considered to determine whether custody and parenting time should be modified. The trial court correctly concluded that the father should have additional visitation.   Vetri v. Vetri, New Jersey App. Div., December 1, 2005