New Jersey Family Law

WEST ORANGE NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER

The husband and wife are from China and seek asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, based on their fear one or both of them will be forcibly sterilized for violating China's family planning regime if they are forced to return. They allege they are at risk because they had a second child while residing here. The BIA determined they failed to show their fear of sterilization was an objectively reasonable one, and denied relief. On petitioners' appeal, the circuit panel affirms, finding the case identical to Matter of C-C, which credited the relevant current State Dept. reports over the opinion of the same expert, Aird, which he based on a pool of documentary evidence from the 1980's and 1990's. The circuit panel has repeatedly recognized that State Dept. reports may constitute substantial evidence and the BIA's explanation of why it decided to credit these reports over the Aird affidavit is well-reasoned.   Yu, et al. v. Attorney General of U.S., Third Cir. (Stapleton, C.J.), January 11, 2008

MORRIS PLAINS NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE ATTORNEY ALIMONY

The New Jersey divorce judge properly included the ex-husband's bonus received for 2005 in fixing future alimony. Although the bonus had not yet been set for 2006, based on defendant's employment history and compensation arrangements, he did not establish there would be no bonus in the future. A trial judge, while calculating a supporting spouse's alimony obligation, may determine the amount of alimony based on the supporting spouse's base salary, coupled with the dependent spouse receiving a percentage of any future bonuses. Because the payor always has the right to move to modify if his income is lower than anticipated, the use of this flexible method may reduce future motion practice based on changed circumstances concerning the amount of the supporting spouse's future bonuses.    Suchenski v. Suchenski, New Jersey App. Div., January 10, 2008

FORT LEE NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE ATTORNEY

The daughter sued her father over the settlement proceeds received from the death of the father's wife [the daughter's mother]. Although the father asserts that the monies were pooled for family purposes pursuant to an agreement reached with his children, the court finds that the facts belie any purported "pooling," thereby abrogating any alleged agreement. Moreover, the defendant is judicially estopped from relying on the validity of the claimed "pooling" agreement. The existence of such an agreement is inconsistent with a certification he provided to the court in a prior legal proceeding. Finally, whether the father acted in a fiduciary role and/or in accord with a confidential relationship with his daughter and her siblings, his use and retention of the funds cannot be countenanced. The court grants plaintiff's application to impose a constructive trust upon the defendant's funds.        Vecchiarelli v. Vecchiarelli, New Jersey Ch. Div., January 9, 2008

WEEHAWKEN NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE ATTORNEY CHILD VISITATION

Based on the opinions of the child's therapist and a behavioral assistant, who concluded any visitation with defendant ( an inmate serving a 5 year term for sexual assault on a minor) would be inappropriate and negatively impact the child, the New Jersey divorce judge correctly denied the 4th application of defendant for visitation with his 8 old daughter. Defendant's expert never interviewed the child and had no basis to opine as to what was in her best interests.    Cain v. Cain, New Jersey App. Div., January 8, 2008

TEANECK NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT REDUCTION

He was a physician whose license had been suspended and who was currently unemployed. He proved a substantial change of circumstances warranting reduction of child support and alimony. Moreover, the New Jersey divorce judge's imputation-of-income analysis was erroneous. He erred in considering incomes earned by physicians, especially surgeons, at a time when defendant was legally prohibited from practicing. On remand, because the physician's suspension has now ended, evidence of his current occupational status and earning capacity should be considered. Consideration must also be given to the effect of the suspension on the ex-wife's expectation of limited duration alimony.     Sender v. Sender, New Jersey App. Div., January 7, 2008

TOTOWA NEW JERSEY PASSAIC COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER MARITAL HOME

Over the ex-wife's objection, the New Jersey divorce judge found the ex-husband's arguments more credible, and determined the share of each to the proceeds from the sale of the former marital home. The ex-wife presents no reasons why the judge was incorrect in his determination, but merely argues the same list of credits and debits she presented below. Many of the items for which defendant sought reimbursement were for expenses she incurred prior to the divorce, which were globally resolved in the parties' original New Jersey divorce agreement.     Morgan v. Morgan, New Jersey App. Div., January 4, 2008 

HOBOKEN NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION COLLEGE EXPENSES

The New Jersey divorce judge was correct in emancipating the parties' 3 older children. However, the request recalculate child support arrears was properly denied. In addition, the court granted the mother's request to compel the father to pay 50 percent of the college costs of the parties' youngest child in accordance with the New Jersey judgment of divorce. As to the latter, the Newburgh factors were applied with respect to the father's obligation to contribute to the college expenses of his youngest child. Since the father failed to produce any further evidence of changed circumstances, the order is affirmed.    Guardiola v. Ellis, New Jersey App. Div., January 3, 2008

SADDLEBROOK NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION ATTORNEY

In this case addressing financial issues arising from a custody dispute between the child's father and the maternal grandparents of the child, who were awarded custody, the court reverses the orders: (1) reinstating a prior $20,000 award of counsel fees to the plaintiffs because plaintiffs did not submit an adequate affidavit of services; and (2) the order requiring defendant to pay plaintiffs' counsel fees for the appellate proceedings, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award fees for the appeal.         Conahan, et vir. v. Klingenberg, New Jersey App. Div., January 2, 2008