New Jersey Family Law

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION

Under the equal-protection guarantee of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples in New Jersey must be afforded the same rights that are enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The name to be given to the statutory scheme---whether "marriage" or some other term---is left to the New Jersey legislature.    Lewis, et al. v. Harris, etc., et al., New Jersey Supreme Ct ., October 10, 2006

BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION

In their New Jersey divorce, the parties agreed to designate the mother as the parent of primary residence. Therefore, the New Jersey divorce judge should have analyzed this matter as a change of custody and considered the best interest of the child with reference to the criteria under the New Jersey custody statute [ N.J.S.A. 9:2-4c] rather having applied the less onerous standard of Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001), the leading New Jersey child relocation precedent.    Greer v. Kuprel, New Jersey App. Div., October 9, 2006

HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE ATTORNEY

On an application under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act [N.J.S.A. 46:38A-33]  and the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act [N.J.S.A. 46:38-27(b)] to compel an unwilling custodian to spend custodial funds for the minor’s benefit, the custodian’s decision deserved the same respect that is generally granted to a trustee’s decision, and it should be disturbed only on a showing of abuse of discretion, dishonesty, improper motive, or abdication of judgment.      Roberts v. Roberts, New Jersey Ch. Div., October 6, 2006

ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

The New Jersey divorce Judge ruled the father was responsible for the college expenses for the parties' son. The Appellate Division rejected the father's arguments (1) the trial court abused its discretion by failing to require the mother to contribute toward the son's expenses and (2) the trial court did not consider the Newburgh v. Arrigo factors. The record supported the conclusion that, although the mother no longer was entitled to support from the father, her financial situation did not allow her to contribute toward the son's tuition and expenses.    Barken v. Pollack, New Jersey App. Div. October 5, 2006

MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE ATTORNEY

New Jersey divorce courts should consider 6 factors to determine whether parties are "former household members" under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d) of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act : (1) the nature and duration of the prior relationship, (2) whether the past domestic relationship provides a special opportunity for abuse and controlling behavior, (3) the passage of time since the end of the relationship, (4) the extent and nature of any intervening contacts, (5) the nature of the precipitating incident, and (6) the likelihood of ongoing contact or an ongoing relationship.     Coleman v. Romano, New Jersey Ch. Div., October 4, 2006

BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER

Baby-boomers are most likely to use prenuptial agreements, and the numbers are steadily increasing, a survey of divorce attorneys has found. More than 80 percent of lawyers questioned by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) say the number of prenups they handle is up, with 65 percent saying 40 to 60 year-olds are most likely to ask for the contracts. Clients increasingly seek such unusual provisions as arrangements for family pets, adultery penalties, intimacy requirements and limitations on weight gain.    New Jersey Lawyer, October 3, 2006

NEW JERSEY FAMILY LAW : MARITAL LIFESTYLE

A new Rule of Court impacts parties in a New Jersey divorce action. Using one of the 4 options provided in the Rule, parties must address the marital standard of living either by (1) including a declaration that the marital standard of living is satisfied by the agreement or settlement; or (2) stipulating the definition of the marital standard of living; or (3) preserving copies of their respective filed Family Case Information Statements until such time as alimony is terminated; or (4) any party who has not filed a Family Case Information Statement shall prepare Part D ("Monthly Expenses") of the Family Case Information Statement form serving a copy thereof on the other party and preserving that completed Part D until such time as alimony is terminated. New Jersey Rules of Court, Rule 5:5-2(f); October 2, 2006

www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r5-5.htm

 

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION: INHERITANCE EXPECTANCY

Should an inheritance expectancy be considered for equitable distribution or alimony or child support purposes in a pending New Jersey divorce?  HYPO : spouse A is the sole legatee of Grandpa Testator, who is 109 years old, in terminal condition and on life support, with an estate of $50,000,000, all of which is left to spouse A under the terms of a valid and binding Last Will and Testament. "Where the beneficiary remains on generally good terms with the donor, and particularly where the donor is a parent or other close family member, it is a rare case where the expected gift or inheritance will completely fail to yield any benefits at all. The better position, therefore is that the court may consider an expected gift or inheritance as one relevant factor in dividing the marital estate. Of course, the weight of a future gift or inheritance as a division factor should depend heavily upon the degree of likelihood that benefits will actually be received."   Krize v. Krize, Alaska Supreme Court, September 29, 2006

http://www.state.ak.us/courts/ops/apub0825.exe

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

Although wife was pregnant and presented with a prenuptial agreement one week before the scheduled wedding date, and she was told that if she did not sign it there would be no wedding, she did not establish that execution of the agreement was a product of coercion or duress. She had sufficient time to review the agreement, she was represented by counsel, she rejected counsel's opinion that she should not sign, and she informed the notary that her signing the agreement was her free act and deed.  Biliouris v. Biliouris , Massachusetts Appellate Court, September 28, 2006 :

http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=16421&sid=119

MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION : SPECIAL EDUCATION

The Board of Education was ordered to release the 15-year-old student's school records to potential out-of-district placements without the mother's consent. She withheld her consent because she did not believe that the student needed a school for students with behavioral problems. But due to the student's lack of progress, the Board concluded that placing him in its high school was not a "viable option." This decision reaches the same e conclusion. The student had to be placed out of district to receive a free appropriate public education. Because no out-of-district placement would consider accepting the student without reviewing his school records, it was appropriate that the records be released without the mother's consent. Asbury Park Board of Education v. M.J., New Jersey App. Div., September 27, 2006