Daughter Emancipated Over Father's Objection

Ort v. Ort, is a case that was originally decided in New Jersey Family Court that involves an 18 year old daughter , Sharon, of divorced parents who filed an application for emancipation, against her father's objection, because she claimed that she desired to legally be her own person and make independent decisions regarding her life. According to N.J.S.A. 9:17B-1, the New Jersey Legislature recognizes an 18 year old person as an adult. Multiple other state statutes reflect this legal recognition - N.J.S.A 2C:58-3; N.J.S.A. 19:31-5; N.J.S.A. 37:1-6; N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-20; N.J.S.A. 5:8-59; N.J.S.A. 43:10-6. Sharon was 18 years old at the time she filed for emancipation and lived with her mother, the Plaintiff, at the time. She entered the current case as a party in interest seeking a legal Court Order of emancipation from both of her natural parents. Sharon wanted to have the ability to make decisions regarding her life, specifically regarding her college education, without her parents input, even though she had a good relationship with her mother (her relationship with her father was strained). She understood that if she was legally emancipated her parents would be under no obligation to financially contribute to her college education. Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 443 A.2d 1031 (1982). Sharon's mother supported her decision to seek emancipation whereas her father did not. Sharon's father opposed her emancipation based upon the argument that she was too young and inexperienced to make decisions on her own and she was not outside the sphere of parental influence. The Family Court held a hearing regarding Sharon's application at which the attorneys for her parents questioned her about the voluntariness and understanding of her request for emancipation. The court found that there was no credible evidence presented by either party or through Sharon's testimony that she was incompetent or too immature to understand the nature of her request. The Appellate Court held that in Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 897 A.2d 1018 (2006), the New Jersey Supreme Court acknowledged that there is a statutory mandate by the New Jersey legislature to declare a person reaching the age of 18 to be an adult. Therefore, the Appellate Court held that it stands to reason that if a person who has attained the age of 18 does not seek the compulsory financial support of a parent, then that parent should not have any legal control over the adult child as long as that particular child is competent and can function independently as an adult. The Appellate Court granted Sharon's application for emancipation and wished her well. If you have questions regarding the legal standard for emancipation or would like more information regarding how to petition the court for an emancipation it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about emancipation, divorce, alimony, 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.

Historic U.S. Supreme Court Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage May Be Upon Us

Same-Sex marriage became legal in New Jersey on October 21, 2013 following the decision in Garden State Equality v. Dow, N.J. 216, 314 (2013). Since that time, thousands of homosexual couples have received valid marriage licenses throughout the state. From 2013 until the present, and since the Supreme Court struck down the federal definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, the number of states that have come to legally recognize marriage equality has doubled. Currently, 36 states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to marry and over 70% of the U.S. population currently live in a state where same-sex marriage is permitted or recognized. One by one, as the states legalized same-sex marriage many Americans began to wonder when and if the United States Supreme Court would take a case or cases that could lead to a nation-wide recognition of marriage equality. Legal theorists hypothesized that the Supreme Court may take up the issue once there was a circuit split in the U.S. Court of Appeals - well that time has come. Recently, the justices of the United States Supreme Court have granted review of four (4) pending cases in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld bans of same-sex marriage and the recognition of out of state legal same-sex marriages in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee splitting with its sister circuit court. The cases are DeBoer v. Snyder; Bourke v. Beshear; Tanco v. Haslam; and Obergefell v. Hodges. The arguments will be heard before the Supreme Court sometime in April of 2015 and a decision on the cases is expected to follow in June. The high Court permits 90 minutes for attorneys to argue whether or not the 14th Amendment requires a state to recognize and or provide licenses for homosexuals to legally wed. Subsequent to the Court taking these cases, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the United States Justice Department will file amicus briefs urging that the justices find that all individuals, gay or straight, have the right to marry. Therefore, it is very possible that gay and lesbian couples may be allowed to marry in any state in the United States by the end of the summer. If you are a gay or lesbian couple who plan on seeking a legal marriage or filing for a same-sex divorce or are simply someone who would like more information regarding the issue there are important factors that you should consider before doing so it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information about same-sex marriage, same-sex divorce, same-sex relationship dissolution, equitable distribution, alimony, custody and visitation or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and it is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Mediation Of Custody and Parenting Time Issues

In the recent Appellate Division case, D.A. v. R.C., the court remanded the parties to mediation to attempt to resolve issues regarding the child custody and parenting time arrangement with regard to their son because the Family Court failed to properly address the legal and factual issues of the case. The parties' son Jeremy was born in 1998. The parties, in 2002, executed a Consent Order for joint custody which specified that Jeremy would live with D.A. and enjoy liberal parenting time with R.C. In 2012, R.C. submitted a Motion to the court to alter the Consent Order to have Jeremy live with him because his relationship with D.A. had disintegrated. D.A. objected to the Motion arguing that the custodial arrangement was only intended to be temporary to allow her to graduate from the police academy. During three (3) hearings that were conducted on this issues the parties each presented completely opposing views with regard to their custody arrangement. D.A., the Plaintiff, argued that R.C., the Defendant's, home life was filled with domestic violence which endangered Jeremy and make R.C. unfit to be her son's residential parent. The Defendant argued that D.A.'s adversarial parenting style drove their son away from her so much that he did not want to live with her. The Appellate Division found that due to the level of informality with which the hearings were conducted the resolutions that were adjudicated with regard to the disputed issues were precluded. According to the record, the trial judge was not aware that due to the fact that Jeremy's parenting time and custody were genuine and substantial issues that were unresolved, he was obligated under Rule 5:8-1 to refer the case to mediation. Due to this oversight, the Appellate Division remanded the case to mediation so that the parties could attempt to resolve the issues that remained. Based upon the parties' history of antipathy towards each other and their prior unwillingness to attempt to reach a mutual compromise the Appellate Court directed that the Family Court closely oversee the mediation. Further, if mediation failed to resolve the parenting time and custody issues the Family Court judge was directed to conduct a hearing to solve the factual disputes and legal findings on the record as is required by N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(f) and N.J. Court Rule 1:7-4(a) by either interviewing Jeremy in camera or placing the reasons for not doing so on the record. Finally, the Family Court judge must consider the factors found in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c) to reach a decision because he previously failed to consider them. Child custody and parenting time cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a modification of your current child custody arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, parenting time, mediation, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Child Relocation At Mother's Request Denied

Hammond v. Hammond, is a 2015 New Jersey Appellate Division case which came out of Bergen County, in which the Plaintiff, Sandra Hammond, appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that denied her Motion to relocate with her eight year old daughter to Atlanta, Georgia. The Family Court judge who heard the case found that relocating the child would be inimical to her best interests and therefore denied the Plaintiff's Motion for child relocation. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Part. The law concerning child relocation as been well established in the state of New Jersey. In this case, since the child was a native of New Jersey, N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 requires court approval to authorize an out of state relocation above one parent's objection. According to Cooper v. Cooper, 99 N.J. 42, 50 (1984), the aforementioned statute was created to ensure the preservation of the post-divorce child-parent relationship as it pertains to the child and the non-custodial parent. The Plaintiff is the mother and custodial parent of the child at issue, and therefore her request to relocate with her child in the face of the Defendant's challenge is governed by a two-part test which was established in Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91, 122 (2001). The test under Baures, directs that child removal be permitted where the preponderance of the evidence reflects that that custodial parent has a good faith reason for the move and that the move will not be inimical to the child's best interests. Baures, 167 N.J. at 118, 122. Further, the court in Baures discerned twelve (12) additional factors that a court should consider in determining whether or not to grant a removal. These factors include, in part, the reasons for the move; the reasons given for the opposition; the child's educational and health opportunities at the new location; a proposed visitation and communication schedule for the non-custodial parent; and the child's preference if he/she is of age; amongst others. On appeal, the Plaintiff argued that the Family Court did not properly apply the above mentioned test in evaluating her case. According to the Appellate Court, the Family Court adequately applied the Baures test in reaching its decision to deny the Plaintiff's application. The court found that the proposed relocation "considerably places the parties' child in a position where she will be deprived of [a] strong family unit and support system in order to move to Georgia where she has no immediate family and no more attractive opportunities." In addition, the court found that the Plaintiff's support evidence reflected only a slight difference in the cost of living between New Jersey and Georgia. Further, the Defendant is actively involved in the parties' daughter's life and enjoyed routine unplanned visits as well as shared a very close relationship with him and his extended family. Therefore, a relocation would result in a "considerable change" to the girl's relationship with her father. The court also determined, based upon evidence submitted by the Defendant, that due to his job as a police officer, the relocation and proposed visitation schedule were not feasible because of distance, financial limitations, and time factors. Overall, the Appellate Court agreed with the Family Court that the potential benefits of the relocation were "not substantial enough to jeopardize [the daughter's] relationship with both her parents and extended family." If your ex-spouse is attempting to relocate with your children or you would like to relocate with your children and expect that your ex-spouse will object to the move it is critical that you consult an attorney. Disputes regarding child relocation can be of the most important in family law because of the substantial impact that decisions regarding these issues will have upon the lives of the parties and their children. For more information on child relocation, custody and visitation, parenting time, divorce, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Court Creates method For Determining Child Support In Multiple Family Situations

In Harte v. Hand, a 2014 NJ Appellate Division case, the court sets forth the methodology for equitably setting child support in cases of multiple family obligations. Specific to the case, the court recalculated two child support obligations for the Defendant; one for Plaintiff Susan Harte and the other for Plaintiff T.B. The Defendant, David Richard Hand, had three (3) children which he fathered with three (3) different women. One of these children lives with the Defendant and his current paramour. Another child lives with Ms. Harte and the third with T.B. whom are both the custodial parents of these children. Previously, the Appellate Division held that the Family Court was mistaken in setting the Defendant's child support amounts because it did not account for the financial impact that one obligation had on the other. Mistakenly, the Family Court calculated the Defendant's obligation as if he had no prior child support obligations and because of this over-exaggerated the amount of income attributable to him. On review, the Appellate Court found the calculation to be unfair and held that "[e]quality in treatment for the mothers should not be obtained by requiring the father to pay an inappropriately high level of support for both children." Harte v. Hand, 433 N.J. Super. 457, 462 (App. Div. 2013). Therefore, one goal to be achieved in calculating child support for multiple families is to ensure parity among the children of the obligor. Id. According to the Appellate Division, the NJ Child Support Guidelines shall be applied when a court calculates or modifies child support and may only be modified or disregarded for good cause shown. Lozner v. Lozner, 388 N.J. Super. 471, 480 (App. Div. 2006). Although, the guidelines are presumed to be correct unless one party can prove their use is inappropriate. In situations where child support was calculated using the guidelines and would cause injustice, the court may disregard the calculation if a party can show good cause to do so. Ribner v. Ribner, 290 N.J. Super. 66, 73 (App. Div. 1996); Chobot v. Chobot, 224 N.J. Super. 648,649 (App. Div. 1988). As in this case, where a party has multiple family obligations and pays child support for children of different households, the court has discretionary power to adjust or disregard the guidelines in calculating an obligation. In its holding, the Appellate Court specified that to equitably calculate child support awards for multiple family obligations, the courts will use a formula set forth in its prior decision with certain modifications. Ultimately, the court will calculate two separate child support obligations for each custodial parent and then average the two figures together. One award is calculated as if the obligor has no prior child support order, and the other is calculated taking into account the prior support order(s). Next, the court will average each custodial parents' two guideline worksheets together and the average will become the child support award for that custodial parent. Child support is the right of the child and the obligation of the payor and always due but the amount is subject to multiple factors. If you are seeking child support from another parent or have notice that your child's other parent is seeking child support from you, it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child support, post-judgment modification , alimony, divorce or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Reluctance To Terminate Alimony Appealed

In Bechtold v. Clauss, the Defendant, Robert Clauss, appealed from a 2013 Superior Court of New Jersey, Family Part Order from Union County that reduced his alimony obligation and re-adjusted his child support obligation. The Defendant contends that the court should have terminated his alimony and applied any reduction in his alimony amount retroactively. The parties in this case were married in 1988 and had two (2) children. They sought and obtained a divorce in 2008. After the parties' children were born, the Plaintiff did not work outside of their home. Their final divorce judgment incorporated a property settlement agreement (PSA). The PSA specified that the Plaintiff would continue pursuing a degree to become a registered nurse and that "it [wa]s hoped that the [Plaintiff]'s anticipated vocation as a Registered Nurse would substantially impact [Defendant]'s ongoing alimony obligation to [Plaintiff]." In fact, the Defendant funded, through a dedicated interest bearing trust account, $35,000 toward the Plaintiff's schooling from his share of the marital residence. Further, the PSA stipulated that the alimony obligation shall be subject to modification based upon either party's ability to show "changed circumstances." The Plaintiff became a registered nurse in 2012 and started to work as a school nurse. In July of 2012, the Defendant filed a notice of his intention to file a Motion to modify child support within 45 days pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23(a). After another five (5) months and unsuccessful mediation attempts, the Defendant filed a Motion to terminate his alimony and reduce his child support based upon changed circumstances now that his wife was employed as a school nurse. After a hearing with regard to the issues, the Family Court judge entered an Order reducing the Defendant's alimony obligation to $350 a week ($18,200 per year) and awarded the Plaintiff with $260 per week in child support. The Defendant appealed from this decision. The Defendant argued that the Family Court judge should have terminated his alimony obligation because he did not make sufficient findings with regard to the parties' marital lifestyle. According to the Appellate Division, "Whether an alimony obligation should be modified based upon a claim of changed circumstances rests within a Family Part judge's sound discretion." Larbig v. Larbig, 384 N.J. Super. 17, 21 (App. Div. 2006). The Appellate Court found that the judge wrote a detailed and thorough opinion on the matter in which he found that the Defendant was not a credible witness. The judge found that the Plaintiff's testimony was credible and noted that although she received $35,000 for her education, it cost over $90,000. The judge then analyzed all of the alimony factors found in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b) in rendering his decision to alter the alimony obligation instead of terminating it. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your alimony or child support obligations it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about alimony, child support, post-judgment modification, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Post-Judgment Appeal To Unseal Ex Parte Transcript Is Moot

In Gearey v. Gearey, the Defendant, Lillian Gearey, appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order denying her post-judgment modification Motion seeking to "reveal the 'super secret ex parte' protected [o]rder" with regard to a hearing that was conducted between the judge, her ex-husband and her ex-husband's attorney. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. The parties in this case were married in 1979 and two (2) sons were born of the marriage - one in 1988 and the other in 1991. In 1999, the parties were divorced pursuant to a final divorce judgment which incorporated a property settlement agreement (PSA). The parties have engaged litigation multiple times since their divorce to deal with post judgment issues. The Defendant provided the Appellate Court with a transcript from 2009, which she specifically ordered for this appeal, that depicted a hearing that was held with regard to the Plaintiff's application to the court to reduce his support amount. At the time, the judge sealed (pursuant to Rule 1:38-11) the proceeding and specifically closed it to the Defendant and her attorney. The proceeding was a discussion involving the judge, the Plaintiff, and his counsel only, with regard to the attorney's request to be allowed to withdraw as counsel. Almost two (2) weeks after this, the Plaintiff's attorney wrote a letter to the court stating that the Plaintiff withdrew his application to modify his support obligation. The Appellate Division noted, that the Defendant had raised the issue of this protected Order on numerous other occasions and has been "denied numerous times." Further, the Defendant's appellate brief was "difficult to decipher," as she sought an "Order," with regard to the issuance of the "secret ex parte Order" but the court had no indication that an Order was ever generated after the "secret" on-record discussion that took place in 2009. The court opines, "Rather than an order, perhaps defendant has been seeking a copy of the sealed transcript of the proceeding where she and her attorney were excluded." Further, it was unclear to the Appellate Division why the transcript was even provided to the Defendant in the first place for the appeal in the absence of an Order unsealing it pursuant to Rule 1:38-12. Most obviously, the Appellate Court noted that the 2009 transcript it received was ordered six (6) weeks after the Family Court's 2013 Order from which this appeal spawned from. The court assumes that the receipt of the transcript might have satisfied the Defendant's need to know what the 2009 ex parte discussion was about. If that was the case, the entire appeal was moot. According to the court, "An issue is moot when the decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the existing controversy." Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006). The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the lower court citing that the rest of the Defendant's arguments were without merit. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your child support or alimony obligations it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification , divorce, alimony, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Domestic Partner Challenges Equitable Distribution In PSA

In R.R. v. R.N., the Plaintiff appealed from a 2013 Court Order which enforced the parties' property settlement agreement (PSA) and denied the Plaintiff's Motion regarding equitable distribution for leave to sell real property owned by the parties. The parties in this case began a romantic relationship in 1999 and entered into a domestic partnership in 2005. In 2011, the parties entered into an agreement regarding their property. The agreement provided that the parties' real property located in Ocean Grove, New Jersey was converted from a joint tenancy to a tenancy in common with two-thirds owned by the Plaintiff and one-third owed by the Defendant. The Defendant possessed the sole right to occupy the property for ten (10) years from the date of the execution of the agreement and was "responsible for all carrying costs" which included utilities, repairs, taxes, and assessments. The agreement provided that the Defendant had the option to purchase the Plaintiff's share at the end of the ten (10) year term. Further, if the Defendant wished to sell his share before the end of the time period, he would have had to offer the share to the Plaintiff for $100,000 and if the Plaintiff did not purchase the share the property it was to be sold by a realtor and the proceeds split between the parties. Shortly after the agreement was signed, the parties' relationship deteriorated in early 2011. Following a trial, the court awarded the Plaintiff with a Final Restraining Order against the Defendant for stalking and harassment. In 2012, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint to force the partition of the parties' real property. In 2013, a Family Court judge denied the Plaintiff's request to force the sale of the property, holding that the parties had already resolved and agreed upon aspects of the real property in a negotiated agreement. The Plaintiff appealed from this decision arguing that the agreement between the parties was no longer enforceable because of the Defendant's subsequent acts of domestic violence and the institution of a Final Restraining Order making the joint ownership of the property inequitable. According to the Appellate Court, decisions regarding the granting of equitable remedies are left to the discretion of the trial courts and are not disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse or discretion. Feigenbaum v. Guaracini, 402 N.J. Super. 7, 17 (App. Div. 2008). The trial court in this case, found that the parties had carefully crafted and negotiated their agreement and the provisions of the agreement were clear and unambiguous and the Plaintiff had "not shown a basis for abrogating the Agreement and requiring sale of property earlier than required by the Agreement." The settlement of litigation is important to public policy in the state of New Jersey and domestic settlement agreements are enforceable in equity and contract as long as they are not unconscionable, fraudulent or overreaching. Harrington v. Harrington, 281 N.J. Super. 39, 46 (App. Div. 1995). Therefore the decision of the Family Court was affirmed. The equitable distribution of assets often leaves both parties with great trepidation about their financial futures making it one of the most sensitive aspects of a relationship dissolution. If you are involved in a battle over the division of property, assets, or debts it is extremely important that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about equitable distribution, post-judgment modification, domestic partnership dissolution, 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.

Divorces Rise Amongst Aging Demographic

A study on divorce rates in America that has been recently published indicates that divorces amongst the older demographic seems to be on the rise. According to the study, "Gray Divorce: A Growing Risk Regardless of Class or Education," authored by Susan L. Brown and I-Fen Lin of Bowling State University approximately 25% of all divorces between 2010 and 2014 were between couples aged 50 years or older. The United States of America currently maintains the highest divorce rate in the world with about 45% of all marriages ending in divorce. This has been the trend over the last two decades, but the number of people who are over the age of 50 and seeking divorces seems to be increasing faster than any other demographic. According to the study, the rate of divorce for people who fall into this age group has doubled in the last two decades. People in this demographic appear to be divorcing for many of the same reasons that other age groups divorce such as: being bored in their marriages, searching for a different life, falling in love with another person, falling out of love with a spouse, or just general dissatisfaction. The aforementioned study points out that a reason that the older demographic may be seeing such a steep rise in divorce rates is because the age group is the first generation to seek divorces and remarry in large numbers when they were younger. At the point in their lives when they are attaining the age of 50 and above, many are on their second or even third marriages. Studies suggest that remarriages are less successful than first marriages. Further, the study indicates that divorce has much less of a social stigma than it historically has had and therefore people are more likely to seek divorces today than they would a few decades ago. Finally, another reason for the rise of divorces in this age group could be because woman today have more financial resources than they have had in the past which provides them with the security to leave unhappy marriages that they may have remained in if such resources were not available to them. Going through a contested or uncontested divorce at any age can be one of the most most emotional and complex times in a person's life. If you are involved in a divorce it is extremely important that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about divorce, uncontested divorce, contested divorce, spousal support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Post-Judgment Custody Modification Denied

In the recent Appellate Division case, C.T. v. M.L., the Defendant, M.L., appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that denied her post judgment Motion that sought to restore joint custody of the parties' children and other forms of relief. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Family Court. The parties in this case were married in 1999. Three (3) children were born of their marriage in 2000, 2002, and 2004. The parties obtained a legal divorce in 2006. When the parties separated in 2005 the Defendant had residential custody of all three (3) children. In January of 2006, residential custody was transferred to the Plaintiff, C.T., because the Defendant's boyfriend, F.L., inflicted serious injuries to Lila, one of the parties' children. In addition, the Defendant's parenting time with the children was suspended. The Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), conducted several risk assessments and following these, the Defendant was allowed limited parenting time with her children conditioned upon the fact that she not have any contact with F.L. In September of that year, the parties executed a property settlement agreement (PSA) that provided that the parties share joint legal custody of the children but that the Plaintiff would have sole residential custody of them. The agreement specified that the Defendant have liberal and reasonable parenting time with the children and included a schedule as part of the provisions. Finally, a provision was entered into the agreement wherein the Defendant was prohibited from having any contact with her former boyfriend, F.L. or his family members, and if such contact was resumed the Defendant would forfeit her future parenting time with the children. Following the divorce the Defendant subsequently married F.L. and when the Plaintiff learned of the marriage he implemented the provision of the PSA that suspended the Defendant's parenting time. The Defendant moved before the court to reinstate her parenting time but in 2007 her Motion was denied and she was only allowed limited telephone contact with the children. Extensive Motion practice on this issue followed and in 2010 a Family Court judge awarded full legal custody to the parties' children to the Plaintiff and suspended the Defendant's right to telephone contact with the children. The judge based his opinion on psychological evaluations of the children that concluded that contact with the Defendant should cease. In 2012, the Defendant filed another Motion seeking the restoration of joint legal custody of her children and the establishment of a supervised parenting time schedule for her to have restored contact with them. The judge denied her request and she appealed from that decision. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the Family Court was mistaken in finding that she did not present a prima facie case of a change in circumstances that would warrant a change in custody. According to the Appellate Court, a party who seeks modification of a judgment or Order regarding custody and visitation "must meet the burden of showing changed circumstances and that the agreement is [no longer] in the best interests of the child." Abouzahr v. Matera-Abouzahr, 361 N.J. Super. 135, 152 (App. Div.). The Appellate Division found that the prior rulings on this issue were correct because the Defendant's repeated filing of the same Motion and hoping for a different result did not rise to the level of a changed circumstance and did not solve the underlying problems that were preventing her from having contact with her children. Therefore, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your child custody arrangement it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification , parenting time, child custody, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlinglawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.