Court Standards for Post-Judgment Modification of Alimony and Child Support

In a recent NJ Appellate Division Case, Cronin v. Cronin, the Court reversed and remanded the decision of the lower court finding that the judge did not make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by N.J. Court Rule 1:7-4(a) in a case involving a motion for post-judgment modification of alimony and child support. Defendant appealed from two separate court orders issued by the lower Family Court in August 2012 compelling him to pay alimony arrears in the amount of $11,500, authorizing the issuance of a bench warrant should he miss two spousal support payments, and denying his post-judgment application to reduce his alimony and child support obligations. In the case, the Plaintiff cross appealed from the part of the order that denied her application for counsel fees. The parties in this case were married in March of 2003 and became divorced in May of 2011. The parties' Judgment of Divorce incorporated their settlement agreement which required that the Defendant pay $12,000 per month in alimony for four years and $2,000 a month in child support - both of these obligations were based upon the Defendant's gross income of $504,000 annually which was his average income from 2005-2007. In 2011, during the divorce proceedings, the Defendant claimed that his earnings had decreased substantially since 2007 and he stated that he could not meet his spousal support or child support obligations. During the hearing, the Plaintiff's counsel stated that the Defendant was aware of this decrease in salary prior to engaging in negotiations for the marital settlement agreement. The Defendant acknowledged this fact and stated on the record that he was not waiving his right under Lepis v. Lepis to seek a modification of the order later. In 2012, the Defendant had become $11,500 in arrears and the Plaintiff petitioned the court to compel the Defendant to pay his obligation and for counsel fees. The Defendant filed a motion in response seeking to modify his alimony and child support obligation based on changed circumstances. The lower court judge ordered that the Defendant pay the $11,500 within 120 days and denied the Plaintiff's request for counsel fees. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded this decision because it found that the lower court judge failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law required by N.J. Court Rule 1:7-4(a). According the Appellate Division, the lower court judge recited the law in his opinion but did not engage in a factual analysis or apply the facts of the case to the law in his legal conclusions. If you anticipate that you will want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of alimony or child support it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, parenting time, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Same-Sex Divorce

As more American states begin to recognize marriage equality, the laws of each state must evolve to anticipate same-sex divorce. Marriage equality, or the recognition of same-sex marriage, is currently permitted in seventeen states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia. The recognition of gay marriage in these states may result in difficulties for the parties if and when they decide to divorce, especially if they live in any of the states that do not currently recognize marriage equality. Many issues may arise for gay and lesbian couples who file for divorce after being joined in a legal marriage in the states in which they live. For instance, all divorces in the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire are viewed equally and therefore same-sex divorces are treated exactly the same as heterosexual divorces. However, certain issues may arise that can complicate same-sex divorces. For example, if a LGBT couple lived together for 25 years before the state permitted them to legally marry and that state considers the length of the marriage when deciding issues regarding division of assets and property, the only time that a court will look to when it makes decisions concerning equitable distribution will be the time that the couple was legally married . Which, in the aforementioned example, is much shorter than the time that the couple was actually together obtaining joint assets. The laws in the state of New Jersey are also continuing to evolve and as time progresses may become more sensitive to the unique legal issues that same-sex divorce presents to the parties involved, such as the issue presented in the example above. If you are currently in a same-sex marriage and you anticipate that you may be contemplating filing for a divorce it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about same-sex divorce, child custody, divorce, parenting time, equitable distribution, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney

Significant Drop In Salary May Constitute "Changed Circumstances" For Alimony Modification

In a recent New Jersey case, Jones v. Jones, the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed a lower court's dismissal for a hearing to terminate or modify permanent alimony based upon a significant long-term change of circumstances. The parties involved in the case were divorced in 2009. As part of their divorce judgment a settlement agreement was executed that defined the permanent alimony amount that the defendant was to pay his ex-wife, the plaintiff, based upon each party's salary at that time. In 2012, the defendant submitted a motion to the court to modify the amount of alimony he agreed to pay his wife because he had suffered a 42% reduction in his salary. The defendant moved before the court to modify his existing alimony obligation based on this significant changed circumstance in his financial situation. The plaintiff opposed his motion and cross-moved for other relief. The NJ Superior Court judge denied both parties' motions without conducting an evidentiary hearing to address the defendant's claim of changed circumstances. On appeal, the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the matter to the trial court for a hearing to consider whether or not his reduction in salary constituted a change in circumstances that would warrant a downward modification in alimony. In its holding, the Appellate Court noted that his allegations of a 42% reduction in salary constituted prima facie evidence (enough evidence on the face of the allegation) to entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing to determine if his spousal support obligation to defendant should be terminated or reduced. If you anticipate that you will become involved in a dispute over alimony or other issues regarding your divorce it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about posst-judgment modification, alimony, divorce, custody child support or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Jurisdiction in NJ Child Relocation Cases

In the recent NJ Appellate Division case White v. Douglas, the Appellate Court considered the issue of New Jersey's jurisdiction in child custody and child support cases where one parent desired to relocate a child out of the state. The defendant father, appealed a Superior Court judge's order that relinquished New Jersey's jurisdiction with respect to child custody and child support when his ex-wife moved to relocate their child to the state of Georgia. The Appellate Court held that the lower court's order was entered in error, as the custody dispute including the Plaintiff mother's petition to move the child out of the state, was still on-going. According to the court, under the New Jersey Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, New Jersey maintains jurisdiction over the child custody dispute until neither the child nor the parents have a "significant connection with this state." Further, in order for the Plaintiff to gain the right to move the child to Georgia over the Defendant's objection, she would have to meet the standards set in Baures v. Lewis, the current guiding case law on the matter of child relocation. According to Baures, the party seeking to remove a child out of the state over the other parent's objection must present evidence that 1) there is a good faith reason for the move and 2) that the move will not be against the child's interests. If these threshold factors are met the opposing party will have the opportunity to present evidence that reflects that the request for removal was either not in good faith or against the child's interests. If you anticipate that you will become involved in a child custody dispute or a dispute over the relocation of a child out of the state it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, divorce, parenting time, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com and NJCivilUnionLaw.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Status of LGBT Parental Rights

As many more states continue to recognize marriage equality and same-sex marriage, it has become a hot topic across America leading many people to ask - what is the status of LGBT parental rights? There are gay and lesbian parents who were previously in heterosexual marriages but have divorced and are now having a very difficult time securing legal protections that permit them to maintain relationships with their children. Although marriage equality is now recognized in 16 states in America, the laws that govern the right to legally marry are different from the laws that govern parental rights. Therefore, even if a state recognizes marriage equality same-sex parents may not be receiving the same family protections as heterosexual parents. For instance, many states still do not allow LGBT, or more specifically transgender people, from adopting a child. Therefore, if a transgender person engages in a relationship with an individual who has children from a previous relationship, in most states, the transgender person will not be able to adopt the children - even if that person is legally permitted to marry his or her significant other. For transgender individuals this harsh fact prohibits them from realizing the family lifestyle that they so desire. In another example, many transgender men and women are finding that many state laws are creating significant impediments for them to gain visitation rights over their biological children because their status as parents, upon becoming transgender, is compromised by the laws of many states. This, compounds with the fact that many others in society and within their own families may choose to make it difficult for the transgender person to see his or her child, solely based upon the fact that the family disagrees with their choice to change their gender. Over time, the laws across the states will evolve and adapt to social change, this is evident in the fact that more and more states are beginning to recognize marriage equality at an ever-increasing velocity. The statue and protections of transgender parents will most likely follow this trend. If you are an LGBT individual and you anticipate that you will become involved in a child custody and/or parenting time dispute it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced family law attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, divorce, parenting time, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com and NJCivilUnionLaw.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

The Issues of Custody Disputes in NJ

The divorce process in New Jersey can cause many difficult issues to arise and child custody disputes are one of the most common issues, therefore it is very important for parties to know what a court considers when determining child custody. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 governs the issues regarding custody disputes. According to the statute, a Family Court judge is authorized to "make such order . . . as to the care, custody, education and maintenance of the children or any of them, as the circumstances of the case shall render fit, reasonable and just." A judge has very wide discretion to use this statute when making custody determinations. The public policy behind the broad language of the law is to ensure that judges have the legal ability to tailor their orders to fit each individual situation to maximize the contact that children have with both of their parents if possible. In Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480, 485 (1984), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that there is a "legislative preference for custody decrees that allow both parents full and genuine involvement in the lives of their children following a divorce . . . in promoting the child's welfare, the court should strain every effort to attain for the child the affection of both parents rather than one." Currently, when making child custody determinations a New Jersey court is guided by the overarching best interest of the child standard according to N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. Pursuant to this statute, a judge will consider a list of factors that he or she will apply to the facts of each case before issuing a custody order. Another aspect of a custody determination is the kind of custody that is awarded. The New Jersey statute that governs custody permits the Family Court to award a parent or parents with 1) joint custody of a child in which both parents have legal and physical custody of the child, 2) sole custody to one parent with parenting time to the other; or 3) another custody arrangement that the court arrives at to satisfy the best interests of the child. If you are involved in a child custody dispute, or have children and are considering divorce, it is critical that you consult with an experienced custody attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, divorce, parenting time, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com and NJCivilUnionLaw.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.