New Jersey Family Law

HO-HO-KUS BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

Because the father is a Maine resident, the New Jersey divorce court did not have personal jurisdiction over him. Therefore, the trial court's decision finding him to be the father of plaintiff's twin girls, and requiring him to pay child support is reversed. The trial court erred in concluding it had jurisdiction to entertain the Maryland-resident mother's complaint merely because defendant paid child support through New Jersey probation for his 4 other children in New Jersey, had a cell phone with a New .Jersey area code and occasionally worked here as a laborer or electrician. None of these contacts bears upon the relationship the father has with the mother, or the paternity of the children, or their support.      Brennan v. Brown, New Jersey App. Div, March 17, 2008

JERSEY CITY NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER

In a child custody dispute controlled by the New Jersey Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-53 to -95, the Appellate Division held (1) New Jersey retains "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-66 over a custody order entered by a New Jersey court as long as there is either a "significant connection" with New Jersey or "substantial evidence" available in New Jersey about "the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships," (2) the father and child had retained a "significant connection" with New Jersey, but (3) the Family Part abused its discretion by failing to decline jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-71 in favor of the child's home state of Maryland.    Griffith v. Tressel, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (2007); New Jersey App. Div., June 22, 2007

CHATHAM DIVORCE ATTORNEY

On the notice of removal filed by the husband’s health insurer and the District Court’s sua sponte order to show cause why this New Jersey divorce action should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction, the District Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the case and that the matter had to be remanded to the New Jersey family court. The insured had filed the notice of removal as an "additional defendant" to the divorce action after the New Jersey divorce judge ordered that the insurer had to insure the wife. However, the insurer was not a party to the divorce action, and the District Court concluded that the "plain language" of the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §1441, "clearly limits" the right of removal to "defendants." The District Court further concluded that remand was appropriate based on interests of federalism and preserving judicial resources. Sheppard v. Sheppard, U.S. Dist Ct. (D.J.), April 16, 2007

SOUTH ORANGE MEDIATION

The court dismisses plaintiff’s civil rights complaint against the defendant, a family court judge who denied her application for a domestic violence restraining order, (1) because the judge is entitled to absolute judicial immunity; and (2) since, by asking the court to compel the judge to issue the restraining order, and to otherwise review the judge’s decision in plaintiff’s state court case, plaintiff is asking the court to act as a n appellate court, which is prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.      Vandy v. Millard, U.S. Dist. Ct., District of New Jersey, March 16, 2007

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE MEDIATION

Although the trial judge denied the Hong Kong-resident wife's motion to dismiss the New Jersey divorce complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding that she had been properly served under the Hague Convention, he correctly dismissed the New Jersey-based husband's complaint based on forum non conveniens, since the parties' children attended school in Beijing, China, and much of the parties' property is located in Asia, where plaintiff himself travels extensively for business.   Zhang v. Cheng, New Jersey App. Div., August 8, 2006

New Jersey Child Removal

Reversing the denial of the New Jersey father's petition for the return of his child from the United States to Australia under the Hague Convention, the appellate court holds that it was error to find that the father consented to the removal or retention of the child under article 13(a) of the Convention, thereby defeating his claim for return.   Baxter v. Baxter, United States Court of Appeals, 3d. Cir., September 16, 2005

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE JURISDICTION

If ample notice [here, by motion, not a separate complaint] is provided that a party to a domestic violence proceeding is invoking the broader equitable powers of the court to seek a remedy not specifically provided by the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991 [such as a determination of rights to real property between unmarried cohabitants], the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.   Mitchell v. Oksienik, ___N.J.___ (App. Div. 2005), New Jersey App. Div., September 2, 2005

Hague Convention

Federal courts won't usually hear New Jersey divorce matters, so this case was initially rejected. However, this was a mistake. Here, the facts involved federal statutes under the international Hague Convention. Because these claims were not raised in the pending New Jersey state court custody action, the federal court's involvement would not have interfered with the state court proceedings. Since federal courts are explicitly granted jurisdiction to determine custody disputes under the Hague Convention, the lower court's dismissal is reversed.  Yang v. Tsui, ___ F.3d.___ ,(3d Cir. 2005), August 2, 2005.

Cross Border Reach

May a New Jersey court protect a person claiming to be a victim of domestic violence in another state and who seeks refuge in New Jersey, from an alleged abuser who has no contacts with this State? Our highest court holds that New Jersey courts do in fact have the authority to issue ex parte relief in the form of a temporary restraining order upon a showing both that the plaintiff is in danger of domestic violence and that the TRO is necessary to protect life, health or well-being.   Shah v. Shah, New Jersey Supreme Court, ___N.J.___(2005); 2005 WL 1528420; July 9, 2005

Sister & Brother

Ashley's dad wanted to establish visitation between her and her half-brother by the same mother. The boy lives in Pennsylvania with his adoptive parents, who object to the visitation request. Examining the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, adopted by both New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the court finds that the only connection the boy has with New Jersey is that his half-sister lives here, which is not a "significant" connection. Accordingly, the court finds itself without jurisdiction and dismisses. In the Matter of Meng, ___N.J. Super. ___(Ch. Div. 2005); ____WL2005 ____, April 5, 2005