New Jersey Family Law

ALLENDALE BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

The mother moved to vacate a child support order, entered without notice to her, in which the court reduced the father's support obligation. She was attending nursing school full time, could only briefly work a part-time job because of taking care of the parties' 4 children, and was only able to afford a one-bedroom apartment for herself and the children. In denying the motion to vacate, the trial court simply stated that it was untimely. But under New Jersey Rule 4:50-1, the motion should have been granted since no prejudice was claimed or shown by the ten-month delay in bringing the motion and there was no proof of service of the summary action.    Odionu v. Enekebe, New Jersey App. Div., April 16, 2008

UNION TOWNSHIP UNION COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

After the parties' New Jersey divorce, the father moved to lower his child support, due to his reduced finances. The mother opposed the motion, in part based on the anti-Lepis clause in their New Jersey divorce agreement. The court holds that the clause in question is still fair, there were no unforeseen or extreme circumstances and therefore modification was not in order. In fact, the application was denied without either an exchange of financial information or a plenary hearing. Finally, the mother had agreed to accept a lower support amount, specifically in consideration.    Sullivan, etc. v. Sullivan, New Jersey App. Div. April 11, 2008

HAWTHORNE PASSAIC COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

It was appropriate to increase child support retroactively to August 2005, creating $8000 in arrears. The original child support order was calculated using the shared parenting guidelines, anticipating the father would exercise overnight parenting time with the parties' son. However, he never availed himself of this time, causing the mother to move for the increased support. The contention that defendant's malicious interference with his exercise of parenting rights resulted in Parental Alienation Syndrome was rejected. Defendant never filed a motion seeking visitation, never once went to his son's sports events, never once sent him a Christmas or birthday card, and never gave him a Christmas present during the entire period. While the judge did note each side probably bore some responsibility for the rupture of the relationship between father and son, the blame for the 18-month lapse lay with plaintiff because he made little effort to see his son, or show him that he still cared.     Coles v. Pinn-Wilson, New Jersey App. Div., March 31, 2008

CHATHAM MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER CHILD SUPPORT

Although the mother sought child support arrears and all support paid through Probation, with counsel fees, the New Jersey divorce judge did not err in granting the father's cross-motion to reduce child support due to a downturn in the economy and substantially diminished income from his ob/gyn practice. Given the changed circumstances, enforcement of the parties' New Jersey divorce agreement was no longer fair, especially as to the escalator clause and the daughter's college expenses. The judge did not err in determining the amount of income to be imputed to defendant and failing to consider the financial contributions of defendant's second wife. But the reverses on the award of only $5,000 in counsel fees : she incurred nearly $57,000. The judge did not address the counsel fee provision, and the matter is remanded for further consideration of the issue.     O'Connell v. Nataloni, New Jersey App. Div., March 20, 2008

HO-HO-KUS BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

Because the father is a Maine resident, the New Jersey divorce court did not have personal jurisdiction over him. Therefore, the trial court's decision finding him to be the father of plaintiff's twin girls, and requiring him to pay child support is reversed. The trial court erred in concluding it had jurisdiction to entertain the Maryland-resident mother's complaint merely because defendant paid child support through New Jersey probation for his 4 other children in New Jersey, had a cell phone with a New .Jersey area code and occasionally worked here as a laborer or electrician. None of these contacts bears upon the relationship the father has with the mother, or the paternity of the children, or their support.      Brennan v. Brown, New Jersey App. Div, March 17, 2008

NUTLEY NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER

All of the father's objections to the New Jersey divorce judgment orders are rejected. These include his claims that (1) because the mother did not pay the amount she was ordered to pay, all rulings by the judges are invalid; (2) because his daughter's math tutoring was unsuccessful, and he then tutored her with his "superior math skills," he was not obligated to pay the tutoring bill; (3) the visitation schedule should be adjusted; and (4) the mother should be required to produce and disclose her 2002 to 2006 income tax returns.     Marcus v. Martin, New Jersey App. Div., March 14, 2008

KENILWORTH NEW JERSEY UNION COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The father appealed from 2 two enforcement orders. The New Jersey divorce judge was familiar with the case and gave every opportunity before incarceration for payments to be made to the mother, or to suggest a reasonable proposal for payment of his outstanding support obligation. There was no violation of defendant's due process rights. Moreover, the judge was well within his discretion to dismiss defendant's untimely, "defective," and "unintelligible" cross-motions and focus the proceedings on his continued non-compliance with orders requiring him to reimburse plaintiff for tuition costs. There was substantial evidence in the record to support the judge's findings that defendant had the ability to pay pursuant to an order his attorney had negotiated 2 months earlier. The contumacious behavior merited incarceration.     Ali v. Ali, New Jersey App. Div., March 10, 2008

MONTVILLE NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATOR ATTORNEY

Over the objection of the father, the court affirms the Family Part order which compelled the mother to pay the father $100 per week in child support, plus $25 towards arrears, for the parties' two youngest children, both of whom are currently with the father. Although the amount she was ordered to pay substantially differs from the child support guidelines, the judge's decision to deviate from the guidelines was a sound exercise of discretion, based on current income level. Since the father did not object to either the fact that the mother had not supplied financial documentation or that she wasn't sworn in when she participated in the hearing by telephone from Florida, those issues cannot be considered for the first time on appeal.   Gensinger v. Gensinger, App. Div., March 5, 2008

CALDWELL NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The New Jersey Child Support Council has selected Essex County as the 2007 Child Support County of the Year.  The award recognizes the outstanding efforts of Essex Superior Court’s Probation, Family and Finance Divisions as well as the Essex County Welfare Department and Essex County Sheriff's Office. This award is the result of strong partnerships among these offices, which work collaboratively to establish and enforce court-ordered child support. In 2007, Essex Child Support Enforcement collected more than $114 million, a 6.1 percent increase over 2006. The increase in collections is due to several program enhancements in intake practices, case management and customer service.     New Jersey Judiciary Press Release, March 3, 2008

MORRISTOWN NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY MATRIMONIAL LAWYER

It was correct for the New Jersey divorce judge to deny reinstatement of the father's driver's license. It had been administratively suspended pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.41 and R. 5:7-5(e) for failure to pay child support arrears of approximately $40,000. The judge rejected defendant's arguments that his disability and consequent involuntary unemployment were the cause of the arrears, and that suspension of his license would create an extreme hardship because he needed a license to obtain employment as a truck driver and for trips to the doctor for his daughter. Support had been set with the knowledge that defendant was unemployed, and the court was not satisfied that he established an inability to sustain any type of employment. Further, he had a long history of non-compliance with support orders even prior to his license suspension.    Rodriguez, etc. v. O'Brien, New Jersey App. Div., January 23, 2008