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
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
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
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
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
The father's motion for child support was denied, and the mother's cross-motion to enforce a prior order was granted. Primary custody was transferred to the father after the mother, who formerly had custody of the parties' child, underwent brain surgery that left her severely impaired. The father's motion failed to include proof of his income or a complete Case Information Statement, whereas the mother's proofs showed that her SSI total disability payments were her only source of income. A non-custodial parent is relieved of child support obligations if she is totally disabled and surviving solely on SSI benefits. The New Jersey divorce judge also properly enforced the mother's parenting time, rejecting the father's claim that the judge had an alleged female bias and bias against black families. Leysath v. Mears, New Jersey App. Div., December 27, 2008
Jacqueline McGreevey is a daddy's girl. Or at least the former New Jersey governor is doing his best to make her into one, his estranged wife contends in the latest episode in their New Jersey divorce battle. Dina McGreevey claims her soon-to-be-ex husband is hogging time with their daughter, kindergartner Jacqueline. Most recently, Jim McGreevey arranged an elaborate birthday party for the girl, who is about to turn 6, on a weekend she is scheduled to spend with mommy. Papers filed in Union County divorce court show Dina fired off an angry, late-night e-mail to Jim last week, demanding he reschedule the Dec. 1 party for Jacqueline's 6th birthday. The event had been planned for a month and included invites to all the girl's schoolmates. "I suggest you plan the party for different day," Dina wrote. The party technically falls on a weekend, when the former New Jersey governor would normally have custody. But Dina argued that he'd had her for Thanksgiving and the previous weekend - and that their custody agreement stipulates that neither McGreevey can have Jacqueline three weeks in a row. Their divorce case is scheduled for trial in May 2008.
The mother wanted to limit the father's parenting time, based on an alleged incident more than 14 months after the parties' New Jersey divorce. She claimed the parties' daughter had been inappropriately touched by the paternal grandmother. After considering the evidence, including the testimony of the emergency room physician, the maternal grandmother, the child, each of the parties, and investigators from the police department and prosecutor's office, the New Jersey divorce judge concluded that the mother failed to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. Chiappetta v. Chiappetta, New Jersey App. Div., August 10, 2007
After the parties' New Jersey divorce, the father consented to the mother's relocation from New Jersey to South Carolina with the parties' son. The parties signed an written agreement that set forth the father's parenting time and the transportation arrangements. However, the New Jersey divorce judge directed the father would have additional parenting time every fifth weekend and that the mother was solely responsible for transporting the son to and from New Jersey. Although the judge found it would be in the son's best interests "to spend more regularly scheduled time" with the father, the parenting schedule and transportation arrangements to which the parties had agreed should not have been modified based solely on their disputed allegations. King v. King, New Jersey App. Div., July 19, 2007
The New Jersey divorce judge was correct in reducing the father’s child support obligation from $2,000 per month to $199 per week, even though he himself had not established a change in his circumstances. Where the original child support award was based on his earning $50,000 per year and the mother's earning $0, but she obtained employment earning $$39,000 per year gross, a reduction was appropriate under the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines. Ortiz v. Fiore-Ortiz, New Jersey App. Div., January 10, 2007
