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 Support Case Appealed Because Judge Did Not Articulate Decision

Recently, a New Jersey case regarding the post judgment modification of a child support order was reversed because the Family Court Judge did not properly articulate his decision consistent with court rules. In Lombard v. Lombard, a Family Court judge addressed issues concerning the ongoing child support, child support arrears, and college contributions for the Plaintiff and Defendant's two children. The Defendant, William Lombard originally filed a notice of motion to modify his child support obligation and to vacate his arrearage. The Plaintiff, Bridget Lombard, who represented herself in this case, submitted a cross motion seeking the enforcement of the child support order. In September 2012, the Family Court held a hearing to address the aforementioned issues. The hearing was neither a plenary hearing or a hearing that allowed for oral argument. The judge issued an order based upon his consideration of the facts and relevant law dating back to September 10, 2012, which was memorialized in his two page decision on this matter. On appeal, the Appellate Court vacated the Family Court judge's decision. A forty page transcript of the Family Court proceeding revealed that the judge stated that he "would like to avoid a hearing for a couple of reasons. Number one, [he] [didn't] want to do it. Number two, it [would] cost [the parties] time and money." Next, the judge administered the oath to the Plaintiff and asked her questions about her Case Information Statement (CIS), pursuant to Rule 5:5-2. Upon hearing her response, the judge recalculated her monthly expenses. The judge then determined that the Defendant had been overpaying his child support payments "for some time," and vacated $2,000 worth of arrears, but did not articulate how he arrived at this decision, which he was required to do pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a, which bars retroactive modification of child support in most cases. The Appellate Division vacated the Family Court's decision holding that Rule 1:7-4(a) requires that a court "find the facts and state its conclusions of law . . . on every motion decided by a written order hat is appealable as of right." This rule was not satisfied by the Family Court judge in this case because the Appellate Court could not figure out how the Family Court judge arrived at his decision. Further, the court held that where multiple submissions by the parties agreed on virtually none of the facts, a plenary hearing is required. See Segal v. Lynch, 211 N.J. 230, 264-65 (2012). Disputes regarding child support can be of the most important in family law because child support money is critical for the welfare of the children of divorced parents. If you are involved in a child support dispute it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information on 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 intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

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.