New Jersey Family Law

EMERSON MIDLAND PARK OAKLAND MONTVALE BERGEN COUNTY NJ DIVORCE MEDIATOR LAWYER

If a New Jersey parent is seeking to take an unemancipated child out of the United States without the other parent present, she/he needs to have the appropriate documentation in hand, to avoid border authority problems.    Rosenthal v. Whyte f/k/a Rosenthal, New Jersey App. Div., December 21, 2011

MORRISTOWN MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER INTERNATIONAL CUSTODY

The United States Supreme Court rarely takes family law cases. But it will do so next week, when it hears oral argument in an international child custody case implicating various aspects of the Hague Convention in a ne exeat context.   Abbott v. Abbott,    U.S.    (2010); U.S. Supreme Court, January 5, 2010

CEDAR GROVE ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY PARENTING COORDINATOR MEDIATOR

The mother wanted to remove a Parent Coordinator. She claimed the Parent Coordinator was biased and unfair. She also argued she did not knowingly consent, that the level of dysfunction between the parties now warrants a Parent Coordinator with specialized mental health training, and that the Parent Coordinator had a conflict of interest because she previously represented defendant's aunt. Finding the record devoid of any evidence of bias, or that defendant's consent was anything but informed, knowing and intelligent, the appellate panel affirms.   Mack v. Hoffman f/k/a Mack, New Jersey App. Div., December 26, 2008

MADISON MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE CUSTODY MEDIATION LAWYER

The trial court awarded the mother primary residential custody and ordered the children to spend every Wednesday night and every other weekend with the father. The court imputed $40,000 per year in income to the father, finding his education and experience warranted his earning an income greater than the $25,000 a year he earned and ordered $18 per week in child support pursuant to the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines. Further, the court found that defendant was unreasonable and did not proceed in good faith on the issue of custody, and ordered him to pay $10,000 in plaintiff's counsel fees, to be deducted from the amount plaintiff was to pay defendant for her purchase of his interest in the marital home.    Meccia v. Meccia, New Jersey App. Div., December 23, 2008

WEST PATERSON PASSAIC COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE CUSTODY LAWYER

Plaintiff appeals from an order designating defendant as the parent of "primary residential care" for the couple's two daughters, ages 10 and 8. The New Jersey divorce judge tried to resolve a scheduling dispute, but wound up upsetting the previous consensual arrangement in place for close to one year. In doing so, the judge significantly altered the pre-existing arrangement and failed to thoroughly consider the statutory factors in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c). Thus, the order was reversed and remanded. Garcia v. Pena, New Jersey App. Div., October 8, 2008

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY : SHORT HILLS ESSEX COUNTY CHILD CUSTODY MEDIATION

The New Jersey divorce judge's summary termination of the father's long-standing right to joint legal custody and reduction of his parenting time, based on the court's pique at the father having signed his daughter out of school to bring her to address the court, was an abuse of discretion warranting reversal, particularly in the absence of a motion from the mother to modify custody. This conduct did not constitute exigent circumstances under Entress v. Entress justifying a change in custody without a plenary hearing. A different judge should preside over the remand.    Evangelista v. Baglivo, New Jersey App. Div., May 7, 2008

MONTCLAIR NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER CHILD CUSTODY

The New Jersey divorce judge did not have to interview the 3 children, aged 11, 10 and 6, in this contested child custody case. This was because of the considerable evidence pertaining to the parenting capabilities of each parent and the best interests of the children, the review of the report and testimony of the father's custody expert – which actually favored the mother – and the testimony of both parties, the paternal grandmother and a friend of the father. Thus, it was appropriate to award the mother primary residential custody.  Hopkins v. Hopkins, New Jersey App. Div., June 7, 2007

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

On the biological father's appeal from an order requiring he and his daughter's psychological father each to pay child support, held (1) the biological father was properly ordered to submit to genetic testing, even though he was unaware of his 12-year-old daughter until shortly before the action commenced and even though he wanted nothing to do with her, (2) equitable estoppel did not make the psychological father solely responsible for the daughter's support, absent interference by the psychological father with support from the biological father, and (3)although the biological father had the primary support obligation, it was proper for him to share the obligation with the psychological father because the biological father could not pay the entire amount of support. J.R. v. L.R., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div.); New Jersey App. Div., July 17, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION : WHICH SCHOOL?

The parties have joint legal and residential custody of their two children, who attend Demarest public schools. Defendant moved to transfer the children to the Ridgewood schools, and plaintiff opposed the motion, cross-moving to amend the parties' shared custody and parenting plan. The judge denied both motions, concluding that there were not "sufficient discrepancies" to require a plenary hearing. However, because the judge did not make any findings of fact or conclusions of law, the matter is remanded to the trial court.  Shau v. Wu, New Jersey App. Div., May 10, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION : INTERNATIONAL CUSTODY

The mother alleged her ex-husband wrongfully detained their daughter when she was 11. The District Court denied the petition, holding that there was no wrongful detention because the child's habitual residence was the United States. Mother appealed, arguing that the child habitually resided in Finland. Although this is a close case, the appellate court affirms. Prior to her retention, the daughter acclimatized to the U.S. From her perspective, there was a degree of settled purpose to remain in this country. The existence of shared parental intent to permit the girl to choose her country of residence bolsters this conclusion.    Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, et al., United States Court of Appeals  [3d. Cir.], April 24, 2006