Child Support And College Expenses Calculated Based on Imputation of Income To Mother

In Haymaker v. Haymaker, the Plaintiff appealed from a post-judgment Court Order that required her to contribute to her daughter's college expenses and set a child support obligation and amount of arrears. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded the decision of the Family Court. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married and two (2) children were born to them. The parties were divorced in 1996. The parties' second child, C.H. was attending Syracuse University since August 2012. From the parties' divorce until 2011, C.H. lived primarily with the Plaintiff. In 2011, the Defendant submitted an application to the court for a change in custody which was granted and an order issued allowing C.H. to live in the primary custody of the Defendant. The Motion was initiated based upon a "four-year financial plan" which was established between the Defendant and C.H. to free the Defendant from his child support obligation and to permit his contribution to C.H.'s college expenses. The change in custody negatively impacted C.H.'s relationship with the Plaintiff. In 2012, the Defendant filed another Motion which sought a Court Order to determine his proportionate share of his daughter's college contribution for the support needs that were not covered by her attendance at college. Subsequent to this, the court issued an Order directing that the Plaintiff pay $125 per week in child support starting in July of 2012. The Plaintiff then filed a Motion for reconsideration which was denied. The Plaintiff appealed the decision and a subsequent decision affixing her child support that was heard during the pendency of the appeal. According to the Appellate Court, the Family Court has "substantial discretion" in deciding issues of contribution to college expenses. Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super. 109, 116 (App. Div. 2012); Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 594-95 (1995). An award will not be disturbed unless is it manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary. In Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982), the New Jersey Supreme Court provided a framework for evaluating parental contribution toward a child's post-secondary education. A Family Court judge has an obligation under Newburgh and N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) to consider all of the factors contained in that decision when making a contribution award. Further, it is well established that a child over the age of 18 who is enrolled in a full-time educational program requires continued support. Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 542 (2006). In this case, the Appellate Court did not take issue with the Family Court judge's analysis of the Newburgh factors in reaching his decision, rather, the court disagreed with the judge's factual findings relative to his consideration of a student loan and other unreimbursed costs in the calculus of his determination. The court also found that the Family judge's imputation of income to the Plaintiff was incorrect. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded back to the Family Court for a re-calculation of these figures. If you believe that a post-judgment modification to your child support or college expense contribution obligation may be beneficial to you 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, divorce, 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 if an attorney.

Court Compels Father To Pay College Tuition

In a recent post-judgment matrimonial case, Martin v. Martin, the NJ Appellate Court reversed a Family Court order denying the Defendant's Motion for college tuition contributions for her daughter because the Family Court judge did not conduct the proper analysis. The parties in this case were married in 1993 and subsequently divorced in 2010. The marriage yielded two children - a son and a daughter. The parties incorporated a property settlement agreement (PSA) with their final divorce judgment that specified that it was anticipated that the parties' daughter would matriculate to college in 2011 and that the son would eventually attend college. The agreement stated that any parental contribution toward the children's college expenses would be governed by the factors set forth in Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982) and that the Defendant possessed the children's savings bonds for the benefit of the children and these bonds were not to be used toward the children's college expenses. The Defendant did not file a Motion for college contribution until the end of 2012, which was well into the daughter's third college semester. According to the Defendant, the delay was the result of not being able to incur any additional attorney fees and because she was hospitalized for five days during that time. The Family Court denied her Motion for contribution, in part, because of the delay. In the Defendant's appeal, she argued that the Family Court judge erred in not requiring the Plaintiff to contribute to their daughter's college expenses by improperly evaluating the factors set forth by Newburgh. According to the Appellate Division, the Family Court had "substantial discretion" in deciding the issue of contribution to the daughter's college expenses. Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. Super 109, 116 (2012). According to this decision: "If consistent with the law, [the] award will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or clearly contrary to reason or to other evidence, or the result of whim or caprice." In Newburgh, the New Jersey Supreme Court established a framework for evaluating parental contribution toward a child's college expenses and instructed courts to consider the following factors: • Whether the parent, if will living with the child, would have contributed toward the costs of the higher education; • The effect of the background, values and goals of the parent on the reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher education; • The amount of the contribution sought by the child for the cost of higher education; • The ability of the parent to pay that cost; • The relationship of the requested contribution to the kind of school or course of study sought by the child; • The financial resources of both parents; • The commitment to an aptitude of the child for the requested education; • The financial resources of the child, including assets owned individually or held in custodianship or trust; • The ability of the child to earn income during the school year or vacation; • The availability of financial aid in the form of college grants and loans; • The child's relationship to the paying parent; and • the relationship of the education requested to any prior training and the overall long-range goals of the child. According to the Appellate Court, the trial judge had an obligation under Newburgh and N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a), to consider all of these factors and in this case the judge did not meet this obligation because he did not consider all of the factors. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded for a proper evaluation. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of a lower court's order or decision with regard to the other party's college expense contribution or any other aspect of your divorce including alimony, child support or custody it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modifications, divorce, alimony, child support, custody and visitation, 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.

Parent Not Required to Pay For Child's College

In Edwards v. Edwards, father was granted a reduction in child support over objection of the mother, who was parent of primary residence, who also cross-moved for reimbursement of the child’s college tuition. The parties’ Property Settlement Agreement, entered in 1991, required each parent to contribute to college expenses of the children based on the parent’s ability to pay. The maternal grandfather established a $46,000 college trust for the child which provided for 3 years of education before the funds were exhausted. The child was able to obtain a partial scholarship and some loans but the amount did not meet his needs for the fourth year of education, his first at New York University film academy. The maternal grandfather provided the balance under the condition of repayment by the mother and the father. However, the father was completely unaware of the payments by the maternal grandfather and never committed to repayment of said loans. The judge below considered the factors set forth in Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 545 (1982) and found that the father did not have sufficient income to contribute to the child’s education and refused to compel the father to pay for college or repay the loan to the maternal grandfather. The New Jersey Appellate Court upheld the decision finding the economic situation of the father did not give rise to an ability to pay and the parties’ Property Settlement Agreement clearly set forth college contributions would be based on ability to pay. If you are seeking a modification of child support or alimony, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on child support, custody, parenting time/visitation, adoption, dissolution of a civil union, marriage or domestic partnership, modifications, alimony, palimony or other family or juvenile law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.