New Jersey Family Law

DENVILLE MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

The daughter is 15. After an argument, the mother bit the daughter on the leg. The New Jersey divorce judge ruled the daughter has the option of whether she wants to exercise visitation with the mother. In addition, the judge decided it was unnecessary to interview the child in chambers. These orders are affirmed on appeal.  D.W. v. P.W., New Jersey App. Div., April 18, 2009

SUMMIT UNION COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE CUSTODY VISITATION LAWYER

The father sought an order that would increase his parenting time to 50 percent, direct a best interest/custody evaluation pursuant to Rule 5:8-1 and find the mother in contempt of court and in violation of litigant's rights because she refused to attend sessions with the parenting coordinator and had interfered with his parenting time.   Rimmer v. Loesch, New Jersey App. Div., February 11, 2009

PARSIPPANY MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY CHILD VISITATION ATTORNEY

The father's unrefuted testimony was that the mother vacationed with her attorney, whom the father had to contact to speak to his children. The New Jersey divorce judge was correct in denying modification of the New Jersey divorce agreement, merely on the basis of the mother's opportunity to take European trips with her attorney.  In fact, those trips hindered the father from speaking with his children.      Levine v. Levine, New Jersey App. Div., January 14, 2009

BAYONNE HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE CHILD EMANCIPATION LAWYER

This is an appeal from 3 orders entered after the New Jersey divorce concerning parenting time and sale of the former marital home. Despite the requirements of Rule 5:5-4(a), the New Jersey divorce judge decided the motions without oral argument, stating no oral argument was granted because the issues were readily resolved by reference to the parties' divorce agreement or the submissions of the parties, and that significant substantive issues were not raised. The appellate panel found the issues raised in the motions, especially parenting time, drug monitoring related to parenting time, and the sale of the marital residence, were clearly "significant substantive issues" and remanded for oral argument.  Lilieholm v. Lilieholm, New Jersey App. Div., October 30, 2008

MONTCLAIR ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE CHILD VISITATION MEDIATOR

After their New Jersey divorce, the parties had various disputes over child visitation. Now, the case is remanded, for a determination whether the ex-husband should be awarded future compensatory parenting time for certain missed visits in July 2007 and August 2007. Haddad v. Haddad, New Jersey App. Div., August 30, 2008

 

CLIFTON PASSAIC COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY VISITATION MEDIATION

A change in a child’s age is a change in circumstance that alone can warrant a change in court-ordered visitation. However, a plenary hearing should generally be ordered if the terms of visitation are disputed and a hearing would assist the court in resolving the issues presented. Nevertheless, there is no absolute right to a plenary hearing.       Swicinski v. Maul, New Jersey App. Div., April 21, 2008

SOUTH ORANGE ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY

At the heart of "this sad case," which raises questions of international and federal law under the Hague Convention's Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, is a custody battle over a young girl who has not seen either of her parents in years. Because it agrees with the skillful analysis of Judge Debevoise of the District Court, the circuit panel affirms his denial and dismissal, with prejudice, of appellant's habeas corpus petition which sought to end her detention in the Ner Jersey (Bergen County) jail for violating a Superior Court civil contempt order.    Carrascosa v. McGuire, etc., et al., United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 3d Cir., April 1, 2008

ENGLEWOOD NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER

In the New Jersey judgment of divorce, the mother got custody of the 3 children and the father was permitted monthly telephone communications with them. The father appealed on the mistaken assumption that the New Jersey divorce judge terminated his parental rights; there was no such order, and his parental rights remained intact. There was no basis for the father's argument that there should be joint custody of the children where he will not be eligible for parole until 2027. Finally, there was no merit to the father's argument that he was entitled to the appointment of counsel.   Flores v. Flores, New Jersey App. Div., January 17, 2008

BAYONNE NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER CHILD SUPPORT

The New Jersey divorce judge was correct in increasing the father's parenting time, where the purpose of the change was to reduce stress on the children from custody transfers, and the children responded well to an alternating schedule. However, the judge erred in reducing the amount of child support based on defendant's contention that the amount agreed upon in the parties' New Jersey divorce agreement was a mutual mistake. There were factual disputes as to whether the parties had agreed to calculate the child support based on the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines, with fundamentally different views as to their intentions and whether there was a mutual mistake. Therefore, the judge should have held a plenary hearing, which is ordered on remand.     Foster v. McGee, Jr., New Jersey App. Div., January 14, 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