New Jersey Family Law

WEEHAWKEN NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge emancipated the parties' son and denied the motion to reinstate the father's child support for their daughter. Because the father's obligation to provide child support for the son was not before the court, it reverses the order terminating that obligation. Further, because the court did not state the facts or reasons supporting its conclusion that there was no basis for reinstating child support for the daughter, the court also reverses and remands that portion of the order.     Woodland v. Collins, App. Div. December 5, 2007

HAWORTH NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER MEDIATION

Over the father's objection, the New Jersey divorce judge affirmed the effective dates specified for the emancipation of the parties' two older children. In addition, the mother was awarded $6,000 for reimbursement for one-half of the sums she had previously expended in educational costs for the oldest child.      Schank v. Schank, New Jersey App. Div., November 20, 2007

SUMMIT NEW JERSEY UNION COUNTY DIVORCE ATTORNEY CHILD EMANCIPATION

The father was entitled to have the parties' son declared emancipated. The son accumulated only 9 credits his first semester of college, 3 credits in the spring semester, and did not reenroll for his sophomore year. Finding a prima facie case for emancipation on the papers, the New Jersey divorce judge opined it was up to the mother to rebut the prima facie showing, and she failed to do so. Except for the son's "bald certification" that his father's "lunatic" behavior caused him not to be able to concentrate, she did not submit any evidence, such as transcripts or proof of enrollment elsewhere. The judge also noted she failed to comply with a prior order requiring her to provide the father with all of the son's educational records. There was no need to hold a Newburgh hearing.    Clayton v. Deter, etc., New Jersey App. Div., June 15, 2007

SHORT HILLS NEW JERSEY DIVORCE CHILD EMANCIPATION

After the parties' New Jersey divorce, the father wanted to declare the youngest child emancipated and to terminate child support. Although the child turned 18 before the father filed his motion, the parties expected their children to pursue higher education after turning 18 and the child graduated from high school, took the SAT, and entered college. These facts "certainly" inured against emancipation and, at the very least, precluded granting the father’s motion without a hearing. The New Jersey divorce judge mistakenly based the decision solely on the absence of a loving relationship between father and child. Instead, whether the child was emancipated depended on the extent to which he had moved outside the "sphere of parental influence" and developed his independence. Remand was required to analyze that issue.   Eibling v. Eibling, New Jersey App. Div., May 24, 2007

EDGEWATER DIVORCE MEDIATION

It was appropriate for the New Jersey divorce judge to deny the father's motion to emancipate his two daughters – one 22 and one 20. There was ample credible evidence that both girls were full-time students living with their mother, despite one daughter’s having left home for approximately 5 months to live away from home. On theother hand, the problem arose because the mother did not reasonably communicate with the father about the daughters’ status, and so, the judge was justified in awarding counsel fees in favor of the father and against the mother.  Gauthier v. Delgado, New Jersey App. Div., April 18, 2007

NORTH CALDWELL DIVORCE MEDIATOR

The New Jersey divorce judge was wrong to declare the 20 year old daughter emancipated as of the date of the motion for relief, rather than as of the date she stopped attending college. The record clearly shows the daughter stopped attending school and became employed. McArthur v. McArthur, New Jersey App. Div., December 11, 2006

ALPINE DIVORCE ATTORNEY

The New Jersey divorce judge correctly denied the father's application for reimbursement of his alleged overpayment of child support for the emancipated child. Since he did not submit his Case Information Statement or documentation about his current income and assets to support his request, the record supported the conclusion that he had not met his burden of proving that he was entitled to reimbursement.   Burg v. Burg, New Jersey App. Div., October 27, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER : UNEMANCIPATED CHILDREN

The New Jersey divorce court denies the motion of the unemancipated children to appeal the order denying their father's motion for change of venue and certain other issues from previous orders. The court finds that the issues were previously addressed and decided. The children's interests in adequate financial support are well able to be expressed by their parents under the existing New Jersey divorce docket and they have no standing to present these issues. Ciancio v. Ciancio, New Jersey App. Div., August 31, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

It was error for the New Jersey divorce judge to emancipate the parties' 20 year old daughter based on her poor college grades. Early struggles at school do not make a child "independent" under New Jersey family law principles. Rather, the child may rely on her parents even more than in times of success. The judge also failed to make adequate findings as to the father's ability to contribute to his daughter's college expenses, and the Newburgh v. Arrigo factors should be considered on remand.  Keno v. Pilgrim, New Jersey App. Div., August 17, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY : CHILD EMANCIPATION

  On defendant's application to emancipate his 3 children and reduce arrearages, the judge appropriately emancipated the 2 older children, ordered defendant to continue to pay child support for the youngest daughter, and, considering defendant's history of non-compliance with support orders -- including a conviction for willful failure to pay child support -- ordered him to continue to pay toward over $240,000 in child support arrearages until satisfied.   Giordano v. Giordano, New Jersey App. Div., May 11, 2006