Child Support Modification Denied

In Markey v. Melazzo, the Defendant appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that denied his Motion to terminate his child support obligation and force a recalculation of his arrearage. The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling of the Family Court. In 1995, the Plaintiff and Defendant had a son together but never married. In 2005, a Court Order directed the Defendant to pay $129 a week in child support. In 2012, the Defendant was injured at work and has since claimed that he is unable to work because he is disabled. Later that year, a hearing officer denied the Defendant's Motion for modification of support, without prejudice, because the Defendant failed to provide proof of his income or the validity of his disability. In 2013, the Defendant filed the application which was the subject of this appeal, wherein he sought the termination of his child support and the elimination of his arrears. The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff has not permitted him to visit with the child and has changed the child's last name without his consent. In 2013, the Family Court denied the Defendant's Motion because the Defendant failed to provide a valid basis for relief. The Defendant appealed. According to the Appellate Division, child support is necessary to ensure that parents provide for the basic needs of their children. Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 590, 660 A.2d 485 (1995). A party who seeks modification of his or her child support obligation has the burden of demonstrating a change in circumstances warranting such an adjustment. Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157, 416 A.2d 45 (1980). The decision must be made in accordance with the N.J. Child Support Guidelines when applicable. Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250, 266, 864 A.2d 1108 (2005); Terry v. Terry, 270 N.J. Super. 105, 121, 636 A.2d 579 (App. Div. 1994). In this case, the Defendant sought the termination of his child support obligation and the elimination of his arrears dating back to 2002 when the child's name was changed, arguing that the name change was a de facto termination of his parental rights, yet the Defendant cites no authority of his position. According to the Appellate Court, the Family Court correctly determined that the Defendant's parental rights were never terminated and thus found no basis for vacating the Defendant's arrears. With respect to the Defendant's claim of disability, he did not submit any medical information. Therefore, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. If you anticipate that it may be beneficial to you to seek a post-judgment modification of a Court Order regarding a 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, 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.

Reduction In Child Support After Incarceration For Arrears

In Solomon v. Solomon, the Defendant appealed from a 2013 Family Court post-judgment Order that granted the Plaintiff's Motion for reconsideration to compel the Defendant to pay substantial child support arrears from his 50% share of his 401(k) or IRA and the proceeds from the sale of a timeshare property. The parties in this case were married in 1996 and had three (3) children. They executed a property settlement agreement (PSA) in 2006 which was incorporated into their final dual judgment of divorce on the same day. The PSA required the Defendant 1) to pay the Plaintiff $300 a week in child support, and $325 per week in alimony for five (5) years; 2) divide the Defendant's 401(k) equally between the parties; and (3) divide the parties' ownership and usage of their timeshare property equally. In 2007, the court assigned to the Plaintiff an amount equal to 50% of the value of the Defendant's IRA and found that the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's rights by willfully failing to turn over to her half of the 401(k) in accordance with the provisions of their PSA. In 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to seven (7) years in prison. Subsequent to his entering into the PSA but before his incarceration, he was required to pay $35 per week toward support arrears. While he was incarcerated, the Defendant submitted an application to reduce his child support payments to $5 a week, to terminate his alimony, and to terminate his payment towards arrears. He argued that his incarceration amounted to a change in circumstances. In 2011, a Family Court judge denied the Defendant's request to decrease his child support payments, but suspended the enforcement of his support obligations pending his release. By consent, the Defendant's alimony obligation was terminated retroactive to 2008. In 2011, the Defendant was released to a work house. In 2013, the Family Court issued an Order pertaining to his child support obligation to which the Defendant moved for reconsideration. The judge who heard the Motion arguments, granted the Defendant's Motion for reconsideration and ordered that 1) the Defendant maintain his 50% interest in the 401(k); 2) the parties continue to share ownership of the timeshare, 3) the parties submit current case information statements, and 4) denied the Defendant's request to stay his existing child support obligation. In the interim, the Defendant's child support obligation was increased due to a cost of living increase and another judge ordered that the Defendant pay $35 a week towards his $90,358.64 arrears. In response, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for reconsideration which was granted and the Defendant was ordered to pay half of his 401(k) or IRA toward his child support arrears and to convey his interest in the parties' time share to the Plaintiff to put towards his arrears. This Order also reduced the Defendant's child support from $366 week to $66 and ordered that he pay an additional $100 per week ward his arrears. The Defendant appealed arguing for a strict enforcement of the terms of the PSA. According to the Appellate Division, "Marital agreements are essentially consensual and voluntary and as a result, they are approached with a predisposition in favor of their validity and enforceability." Massar v. Massar, 279 N.J. Super. 89, 93 (App. Div. 1995). Yet, in this case, the court was guided by its long-standing view that the " . . . obligation to provide child support 'is engrained in our common law, statutory, and rule-based jurisprudence.'" Colca v. Anson, 413 N.J. Super. 405, 414 (App. Div. 2010). "Child support is the right of the child and responsibility of both parents, not a child won or lost by the custodial parent from the non-custodial parent." Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 591 (1995). When considering all guiding principles that inform child support decisions and its standard of review, the court was satisfied that the lower court enforced the parties' PSA to the children's best interests and therefore affirmed the decision of the Family Court. 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, alimony, 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.

Court Affirms Child's Emancipation Over Mother's Protests

In Almeida v. Dykhouse, the parties have been engaged in repetitive litigation with regard to financial issues concerning the custody and emancipation of their son. The parties were never married and their son was 23 years old at the time of this appeal. The issues that were the result of the appeal arose out of a Family Court judge's opinion issued in 2014. In that opinion, the judge emancipated the parties' son as of 2012 and granted the father a child support credit from 2008 through the date of emancipation in 2012. Further, the father was ordered to pay certain arrears on child support and college costs upon an audit that was to be conducted by the Probation Department. The audit determined that the father owed $414 to the mother after considering other credits. The mother appealed from the Family Court's ruling challenging the retroactive medical credits awarded to the father and the Court Order emancipating the son as of 2012. She argued that the court should have delayed the date of her son's emancipation until the end of 2013 when he stopped taking courses at a community college. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court determining that the son had attained the age of majority and had sufficiently moved beyond the sphere of influence and responsibility of his parents to be emancipated. Filippone v. Lee, 304 N.J. Super. 301, 308, 700 A.2d 284 (App. Div. 1997); Llewelyn v. Shewchuck, Super. LEXIS 60 (App. Div. 2015) (slip op. at 7). Therefore, even though he may have still been taking some classes at a community college he was no longer being supported by his parents and was able to support himself outside the home. The Appellate Division saw no reason to disturb the judge's rulings, including the retroactive credits awarded to the father for past health insurance premiums. The court also noted that although the parties continued to disagree over the court's calculations regarding the credits and arrears, the Appellate Court was satisfied that the remaining issues were de minimis in nature and did not require it to make any further rulings with regard to them. N.J. Court Rule 2:10-2. In New Jersey child emancipation does not automatically occur once a child reaches the age of majority and a party wishing to seek the legal emancipation of a child much petition the court to do so. If you have questions regarding the legal standard for emancipation or how a child's emancipation affects a parent's child support obligation it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about emancipation, child custody, divorce, alimony, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Child Support Arrears PLUS Interest for Essex County Man

In recent Essex County case, Harrison v. Gordon, on appeal the Defendant, Anthony Gordon, argued that the Family Court judge erred in making him pay child support arrears and interest upon them because Probation has made a miscalculation on the amount. The parties in this case were married in 1989 and had a child one year later. In 1995, they decided to obtain a divorce. A property settlement agreement (PSA) was incorporated into their final judgment of divorce which included a provision that specified that the Defendant would pay $4,500 a month in child support which was to be reduced to $2,500 a month when the parties' marital residence was sold. This home was sold in 1997. The Defendant failed to pay his full child support obligation for many years afterward. In 2003, the Defendant submitted a motion to reduce his obligation and a court order was issued reducing his obligation to $1,250 which equaled $750 in continuing child support and $500 toward his overall arrearage, but the judge at that time did not set forth the full amount of child support arrears that was due. In 2004, the judge determined, by court order, that $264,000 was the arrearage amount. The Defendant appealed the 2003 and 2004 court orders. The Appellate Court at that time reversed and remanded the case back to the Family Court for "reconsideration of the current child support obligation." Harrison v. Gordon, No. A-2193-03 (App. Div. 2005). In 2005, the Family Court judge issued another order which reallocated the $1,250 a month child support obligation to reflect $500 for continuing child support and $750 toward the Defendant's arrears. Once again, the Defendant argued that he was not credited for $55,000 in unaccounted payments toward his arrearage. The judge gave the Defendant 90 days to provide proof of his claim and directed that in the event that the proof was not forthcoming, the judgment of $209,000 set forth in that order shall be increased automatically to $264,000. The Defendant failed to provide such proof. The matter came before the court again in 2008 upon the Plaintiff's application to accelerate the Defendant's child support obligation by doubling his monthly amount so that she and he could meet their daughter's college education expenses. The parties agreed that the obligation would be increased but that the Defendant would receive an additional credit against his total arrears for doing so - he would get $6,000 a year off of his arrearage for agreeing to the double payments. An order to this affect was issued and things proceeded well for the next four years. In 2012, when the parties' daughter graduated college the Defendant quickly moved to establish her emancipation and the Plaintiff cross moved to establish the Defendants total arrearage amount. A new judge heard the case and ordered that the Defendant owed $81,810.17 in arrears and discovered that the Probation Department never added the $55,000 required by the 2005 order and therefore the judge ordered that the Defendant pay $1,500 a month against the arrears. The Defendant appealed this order arguing that the court improperly upheld the parties' agreement for arrears as ordered in 2008 and the court erred by ordering the Defendant to pay $55,000 additional arrears because of Probation's mistake. Further, he argued that the court erred in ordering him to pay interest on the outstanding judgment for child support because collection on any outstanding judgment was denied and its enforcement denied in a 2004 court order. The Appellate Court found insufficient merit to warrant a lengthy discussion in a written opinion on the Defendant's first argument, except for citing that as revealed by the history of the case, a long dispute existed regarding the $55,000 for which the Family Court judge gave the Defendant two chances to prove, and both times he failed to do so and therefore the Defendant should not receive the benefit of a Probation error. N.J.C.R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Further, the Appellate Division dismissed the Defendant's second argument as there was no equitable reason why interest should not have begun to accrue on the arrears that existed at the time of the child's emancipation. 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 DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Man With Lifetime Alimony Gets Jail Time

A New Jersey man is so far behind in his lifetime alimony payments that he routinely gets sentenced to jail time for not paying his ex-wife her alimony and his child support payments. The Bergen county man worked as a portfolio manager at a major investment group and at one time made as much as $1 million a year. He and his ex-wife divorced after 17 years of marriage and was ordered by a New Jersey court to pay alimony and child support. As of August, 2013, the man has been sent to jail at least eight times in the span of two years for missing his court-ordered alimony obligations. The reason he has been missing his alimony payments is because, like so many people throughout New Jersey, his salary and job security has been the victim of the unstable national economy. In order to keep up with his court-ordered alimony and child support payments he has exhausted his life savings. His court-ordered annual alimony and child support obligation total almost $100,000 a year. The man feels that the laws of the state of New Jersey with regard to lifetime alimony are completely unfair because if a payer’s life circumstances changes and he or she cannot continue to pay the amount of alimony that the court ordered, they can be jailed for contempt of court for missing payments – even if they are out of work and out of resources to make the payments. Although, New Jersey law does allow post judgment modification of alimony and child support in some cases where a party can show a significant “changed circumstance” that would necessitate court intervention, many law makers are pushing to change the archaic laws concerning lifetime alimony in New Jersey. Currently, there are two bills before the New Jersey Legislature focused on this goal. Getting the court to modify alimony and child support amounts could be difficult and require paying an attorney to carry out the process. If you need to petition the court to modify your alimony or child support payments you should seek out the advice and counsel of an attorney who has experience in his area of the law. For more information about alimony, child support 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.

Incarceration For Willful Non-Payment of Child Support in NJ Requires Specific Findings of Fact

At times, failure to pay child support is intentional and other times it is unintentional. Judges may not make arbitrary decisions based upon their personal judgments as to the character of the non-paying individual. In the case in which such findings may lead to incarceration or invasion of the individual's rights from an order to wean and ankle bracelet for monitoring, this is even more so. When a court is making a finding regarding the ability of a child support obligor to pay, the judge is required to permit the obligor to testify on his or her own behalf and to present evidence in support of their inabilty to pay. Due to changed circumstances such as job loss, other court ordered obligations, failure of a business, disability, lack of work or other reasons for reduced income an obligor may be entitled to a reduction in child support and some flexibility regarding payment of arrears. A judge must set forth on the record specific finding of facts as to how they reached their decision in a matter. When an obligor's freedom and rights are at stake, the requirement of clear reasons from an unbiased point of view is even more necessary. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are seeking, or subject to, enforcement or modification of child support in Family Court, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on child support, enforcement, modification, alimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership, custody or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.