Emancipation and Child Support Provisions Of PSA Not Enforced

Cosco v. Cosco, is a post-judgment dissolution matter in which the court addressed the issue of a child's emancipation in the context of a parent who sought to terminate his child support obligations based upon a settlement agreement that specified that the support would terminate when the child turned eighteen years old. The Plaintiff appealed from the Family Court's Order that denied the emancipation of the parties' sons and the termination of child support, amongst other requests for relief. He argued that the court erred in not enforcing the parties' property settlement agreement (PSA) that set the termination date for the child support because the provisions were "fair and equitable" and the "public policy against waiver of child support [did] not apply . . . ." The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. According to the Appellate Division, any agreement attempting to abrogate a child's right to support is not enforceable. The courts have consistently held that an agreement between parents purporting to waive child support does not affect the child's right to those benefits. Kopak v. Polzer, 4 N.J. 327, 332-33 (195); Martinetti v. Hickman, 261 N.J. Super. 508, 512 (App. Div. 1993); Ryan v. Ryan, 246 N.J. Super. 376, 383 (Ch. Div. 1990). Applying these principles, the Appellate Division determined that the Family Court correctly determined that, based upon the parties' Certifications confirming the children were still in school and reliant upon their parents for support, neither child was emancipated and neither their turning eighteen nor the PSA altered their entitlement to support. Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 543 (2006); Moehring v. Maute, 268 N.J. Super. 477, 480-81 (Ch. Div. 1993). Child emancipation and child support cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you feel that it may be beneficial to you to submit an application to the court for a modification of your current child support obligation or with regard to the emancipation of your children it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, child support, post-judgment modification, emancipation, divorce or other family law matters in New Jersey visit the DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Emancipation And Alimony Termination Application Results in Child Support Modification

In Jackson v. Jackson, the Plaintiff appealed from a 2013 post-judgment matrimonial Order regarding the emancipation of the parties' daughter and the termination of alimony payments to the Defendant. The Family Court judge denied the emancipation request after finding that the Defendant's documentation showed the child was enrolled as a full-time college student and recalculated the child support obligation. N.J.S.A. 9:17B-3; Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 543, 443 A.2d 1031 (1982); Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 543, 897 A.2d 1018 (2006); Moehring v. Maute, 268 N.J. Super. 447, 480-81, 633 A.2d 1055 (Ch. Div. 1993). The judge also denied the Plaintiff's request to terminate alimony. On appeal, the Plaintiff challenged the income that was used to compute his child support obligation. Upon review, the Appellate Division discovered that the documentation that was relied upon by the Family Court judge to fix the Plaintiff's child support obligations revealed a gross weekly income of $1,219, which is the same amount that the Plaintiff reported on his case information statement submitted to the court. The Plaintiff's 2012 W-2 showed a gross annual income of $63,280 which is $1,217 a week. Therefore, the Appellate Court did not find any error on the N.J. Child Support Guidelines worksheet that was used to calculate the support obligation. The calculation did neglect to include the alimony paid by Plaintiff of $125 a week. According to the Appellate Court, the calculation should have deducted the alimony payment from the Plaintiff's income and included it within the Defendant's income. The child support calculation also failed to include the allocation of payments made for the child's health insurance. Therefore, the child support obligation of $183 a week was wrong and was vacated and recalculated. The Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's Order using the Plaintiff's weekly income of $1,217 and reversed the Order that directed that the child support obligation was $183 a week and remanded the case back to the Family Court to recalculate the support accounting for alimony and the cost of health insurance. If you anticipate that it may be beneficial to you to seek a post-judgment modification of your child support obligation it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification, child support, emancipation, divorce, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.