New Jersey Family Law

HOBOKEN NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER ALIMONY MODIFICATION

This case was twice remanded by the New Jersey Appellate Division for reconsideration of alimony and allocation of the parties' liabilities. The New Jersey divorce judge entered an order, without holding a hearing, directing the ex-husband to pay the ex-wife $250,000 per year in alimony. This time, there was a comprehensive 53 page opinion with detailed findings of fact and appropriate conclusions of law. The opinion included a worksheet showing the court's calculations. Now, the ex-husband's application to modify alimony is properly denied for failure prove sufficiently changed circumstances.  Milgraum v. Milgraum, New Jersey App. Div., June 8, 2007

MONTCLAIR NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER CHILD CUSTODY

The New Jersey divorce judge did not have to interview the 3 children, aged 11, 10 and 6, in this contested child custody case. This was because of the considerable evidence pertaining to the parenting capabilities of each parent and the best interests of the children, the review of the report and testimony of the father's custody expert – which actually favored the mother – and the testimony of both parties, the paternal grandmother and a friend of the father. Thus, it was appropriate to award the mother primary residential custody.  Hopkins v. Hopkins, New Jersey App. Div., June 7, 2007

MAPLEWOOD NEW JERSEY DIVORCE CHILD RELOCATION LITIGATION

The New Jersey Supreme Court considers whether the mother should be permitted to relocate to Japan with the parties' child, against the wishes of the father and after their New Jersey divorce. Concluding that the Baures factors apply in the context of an international removal and that the trial court properly applied those factors to the present circumstances, the Court affirms the order granting the removal request.    MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, ___N.J.___ (2007); New Jersey Supreme Court, June 4, 2007

SPRINGFIELD NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION

A New Jersey restraining order was appropriately entered against the ex-wife. The parties were in the midst of their New Jersey divorce, when she engaged in a repeated course of intentional harassment. She (1) yelled obscenities and threatened to kill the ex-husband and his girlfriend, (2) chased them on the highway for miles while threatening to "burn" them, driving erratically, and attempting to run them off the road, and (3) again cursed and threatened to kill the him and his girlfriend after the husband stopped his car. Furthermore, the evidence of the wife’s initial threat to kill the husband and his girlfriend, followed by the wife’s attempt to run them off the road, was sufficient to establish a terroristic threat. The court rejects her assertion that the parties’ confrontations were "ordinary domestic contretemps."     Montague v. Montague, New Jersey App. Div., June 3, 2007

ENGLEWOOD NEW JERSEY DIVORCE CHILD REMOVAL LITIGATION

The mother secretly moved with the children to New York . Although she may have had legitimate reasons for the move, having saved her money to purchase a business there, and did not intend to hurt the father and his relationship with their daughter , the remainder of the Baures factors militated in favor of denying her motion seeking approval of the relocation, including the child's distance from her father, step-mother, and extended family on both sides; her slipping grades in New York; and the detriment and potential danger of residing in an apartment over a liquor store, the store in which plaintiff had an ownership interest. The New Jersey divorce judge also ruled it was unlikely the mother would foster the child's relationship with her father if the move became permanent : she had already discouraged defendant's parenting time even before the move, and required the child to conceal the move from her father while it was pending.    Davis, etc. v. Davis, App. Div., June 2, 2007

SUMMIT NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ALIMONY MODIFICATION

The New Jersey divorce judge denied the ex-husband's motion to modify his alimony obligation . But this was error and is reversed, because the judge made credibility findings based solely on the parties' competing certifications, which raised issues not only as to income, but cohabitation, inheritance and other issues which might ultimately have an impact on the alimony decision. Singleton v. Singleton, New Jersey App. Div., June 1, 2007

RIDGEWOOD NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

The New Jersey judgment of divorce conditioned the mother’s parenting time with parties’ children, who were in the physical custody of the father, on the children’s consent. But, according to the mother, she had not had parenting time with the children since the judgment was entered. Because the New Jersey divorce judge did not explain the decision to condition the mother’s parenting time on the children’s consent, and stated no reasons why that decision was in the best interests of the children, there could be no meaningful appellate review, and remand was required for reconsideration of the parenting-time issue and for further findings of fact and conclusions of law.     Parcel v. Parcel, New Jersey App. Div., May 28, 2007

SHORT HILLS NEW JERSEY DIVORCE CHILD EMANCIPATION

After the parties' New Jersey divorce, the father wanted to declare the youngest child emancipated and to terminate child support. Although the child turned 18 before the father filed his motion, the parties expected their children to pursue higher education after turning 18 and the child graduated from high school, took the SAT, and entered college. These facts "certainly" inured against emancipation and, at the very least, precluded granting the father’s motion without a hearing. The New Jersey divorce judge mistakenly based the decision solely on the absence of a loving relationship between father and child. Instead, whether the child was emancipated depended on the extent to which he had moved outside the "sphere of parental influence" and developed his independence. Remand was required to analyze that issue.   Eibling v. Eibling, New Jersey App. Div., May 24, 2007