New Jersey Family Law

HACKENSACK DIVORCE LAWYER

The parents are contesting the adequacy of their 8-year-old autistic son's Individual Education Plan (IEP), designed by the local school district under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Both the administrative hearing board and the federal district court that heard their claim approved the plan. The parents appealed the decision without a lawyer. The court of appeals dismissed their claim, holding that parents are barred from litigating IDEA claims pro se on behalf of their children. The parents argue that IDEA permits pro se litigation, while the school district claims that educational policy and precedent suggest otherwise. Courts of appeals are split on whether parents can litigate pro se their own procedural IDEA claims, their children's substantive IDEA claims, or neither. This case [to be argued before the United States Supreme Court on Feburary 26, 2007] will settle the split and define the scope of parental rights under IDEA and pro se litigation under federal law in general.   Winkelman v. Parma City School District, February 9, 2007;   http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/05-983.html

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE : WHO DRIVES?

The court affirms the Family Part judge's order requiring the defendant-mother to share the driving responsibilities necessary to effectuate the parenting time of the defendant-father. In affirming, the panel notes that Family Part judges exercise an acquired expertise when resolving disputes involving children, and the solutions they reach will not be disturbed absent an improper exercise of that discretion. O'Donnell v. Singleton, etc., New Jersey App. Div.; ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2006); March 30, 2006

NEW JERSEY SEARCH & SEIZURE : SPOUSAL CONSENT

The estranged wife gave police permission to search the marital home for items of drug use after the husband, who was also present, had unequivocally refused to give consent. He was indicted for possession of cocaine. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence as products of a warrantless search unauthorized by consent. The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed. In affirming, the Georgia Supreme Court held that consent given by one occupant is not valid in the face of the refusal of another physically present occupant, and distinguished United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 , which recognized the validity of entry made with the consent of one co-occupant in the other's absence. HELD: under these circumstances, the husband's stated objection renders the search unreasonable and invalid as to him.  Georgia v. Randolph, United States Supreme Court, ___U.S.___ (2006); March 27, 2006

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1067.ZS.html

Gay Marriage Licenses

A Manhattan judge has declared New York's Domestic Relations Law unconstitutional and enjoined the city clerk from denying same-sex marriage licenses. Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled Friday that the statute violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the state Constitution. The decision could put New York on the same path as Massachusetts, whose highest court found its state law unconstitutional. New York Law Journal, February 7, 2005