Party Chose to Ask Forgiveness Rather Than Permission to Relocate

In A.J. v. R.J., custody of the parties’ children was transferred to defendant upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with a prior order concerning plaintiff’s relocation with the children. The parties married in 2008, and divorced in 2013. Two children were born of the marriage. The parties divorced with a negotiated marital settlement agreement, rather than a trial, with defendant receiving parenting time every other weekend and one weeknight overnight. Plaintiff was a tenured teacher in Elizabeth and Defendant resided in Union. Post-judgment, Plaintiff remarried and had another child. Due to Plaintiff’s family growing, they moved to Mount Holly. Plaintiff failed to obtain permission, from the Defendant or the court, to move the children after the Defendant notified her that he did not wish for the children to live so far away. Upon learning of the move, the Defendant filed an order to show cause to modify the judgment as to custody and to prevent the Plaintiff’s relocation. The trial judge granted the Defendant parenting time three weekends each month. Thereafter, a plenary hearing occurred and the trial judge ordered Plaintiff to relocate within fifteen miles of Union prior to the beginning of the upcoming school year. In making his decision regarding the Plaintiff’s ability to relocate with the children, the trial judge relied upon the factors set forth in Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001). Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the judge applied the wrong standard in his determination of her ability to relocate and that he changed the terms of the partied MSA by including a fifteen-mile rule where the parties had none. With regard to the imposition of the fifteen-mile limitation, pursuant to Ridley v. Dennison, 298 N.J. Super. 373, 381 (app. Div. 1997), Rule 5:3-7 and Rule 1:10-3, the court may craft remedies or measures to facilitate enforcement in the event an order is violated. As to the Judge’s use of the Baures factors, Baures no longer applies when a court is addressing relocation; rather, the court must consider N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. As the motion judge did not apply the correct measure in sanctioning the plaintiff, the appellate division reversed and remanded. If you are planning to relocate and believe that it may affect your parenting time arrangement, or you are seeking to prevent your children's other parent from relocating, it is critical that you seek an experienced family law attorney to represent you as misapplication of law can cause disastrous results for you and your children. For more information about relocating with children, divorce, alimony, child support or other family matters, visit DarlingFirm.com. To schedule a consultation with an experienced family law attorney now, call 973-584-6200. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

In Child Custody Matters, Custody Neutral Assessments Have Limited Admissibility

In a child custody matter, a report issued in a Custody Neutral Assessment (C.N.A.) was not admissible as substantive evidence but was admissible for the limited purpose of the impressions of the assessor and statements and conduct of the parties during the assessment. Manuel Serrano and Gregoria Urbano were divorcing after a marriage of only 2 years and the issue of custody of their child was contested. They could not afford a forensic psychologist to perform a comprehensive evaluation and render a report as to custody but did participate in a C.N.A. with a clinical social worker. The C.N.A. included meetings with each party individually and a report of the evaluator’s impressions and observations during the process. Thereafter, the matter proceeded to trial. In the trial of Serrano v. Urbano, the judge held that: (1) A C.N.A. is not, and therefore cannot be substituted for, a forensic custody evaluation; (2) Unless a forensic evaluation is undertaken, an expert opinion cannot be rendered as to the issue of custody from a forensic psychological standpoint; (3) The testimony and report of the evaluator may have limited admissibility for the purpose of determining the best interests of the child; and (4) The evaluator may offer testimony with regard to statements or actions of the parties during the assessment and the evaluator’s impressions thereof as long as said information is relevant. If you are contemplating divorce and child custody or parenting time is likely to be an issue, it is critical that you consult with an experienced family law attorney in order to learn your rights and the likely outcome of your matter before making any decisions. Child custody determinations can be painstaking for the parties and the court and are not easily modified without consent of both parties or a considerable change in circumstances that is obvious to the court. For more information about custody, parenting time, divorce, alimony or other family law matters visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Post Divorce Challenge To Alimony And Child Support Findings

In Wicker v. Wicker, James Wicker challenged the method in which his alimony and child support obligation was calculated. Specifically, Wicker challenges the court's determination of his monthly expenses and income in arriving at his available funds from which child support for the parties' 3 daughters may be paid. Wicker contended to the NJ Appellate Division that the court did not adequately consider his expenses in commuting from Virginia to New Jersey every other weekend in order to exercise his parenting time and failed to properly include his rental expenses and was inequitable in creating the need for him to remain employed in Washington, D.C. which necessitated the retention of two separate residences. Tara and James Wicker entered into a voluntary and negotiate, but not complete, property settlement agreement (PSA) leaving some remaining issues for the court to decide. From 1996, the date of the parties' marriage, until 2010, the defendant earned under $100,000. In 2010, the defendant secured an income of approximately $190,000 per year leading up to the parties' divorce in 2013. Two of the parties' 3 daughters had significant medical issues and Tara Wicker was the primary caretaker. An employability expert determined that Tara Wicker's long-term absence from the job market and need to care for the children limited her earning capacity to $35,000 per year. Both parties challenged the figures which should be used in determining income. There was also substantial question as to how the defendant arrived at his monthly expenses, including his claim of $9,000 monthly in pendente lite support. The NJ Appellate Division began the analysis with Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998), which dictates that decisions of the court below will remain undisturbed if supported by the weight of credible evidence and law, and Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414 (2015), dictating that decisions of the court below will be disturbed if the court below abused its discretion or the findings are not consistent with the credible evidence and legal principles. The Appellate Division reasoned that N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(b) empowers judges with the authority to fashion individual solutions best suited to meet the needs of both parties. Randazzo v. Randazzo, 184 N.J. 101 (2005). In affirming the decision of the court below, the court found that the trial judge gave full review to the facts, including the defendant's income and expenses, and the findings were supported by the weight of credible evidence under the guiding principles of law. A divorce will likely have a considerable impact on your life, including determinations about support, custody and parenting that affect where and how you and your family will live. If you are considering divorce or modification of a prior judgment, you should first consult with an experienced family law attorney to determine the likely outcome. For more information about divorce, alimony, child support, relocation with a child and other family law matters visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Pendente Lite Support Pending Divorce

Pendente lite support is temporary support, established during the pendency of a divorce, intended to preserve the financial status quo, or marital standard, of the parties until equitable distribution and alimony are resolved, between the parties or by a judge, and a final judgment of divorce is obtained. The span of time between separation or the filing of a divorce complaint and actually obtaining a divorce can sometimes take years making pendente lite support a critical issue for both parties. Although the intent is to continue the status quo existing prior to the marriage and ensure an economically dependent party is not left destitute, pendente lite support often leaves both parties lacking. Expenses often increase during this time as there is typically another residence to support and, if there are children, the party vacating the residence must have adequate housing for themselves and the children or they will be in an inferior position when it comes to parenting time. Often, parties will separate but make efforts at resolution for long periods of time prior to filing for divorce. During this time, if things are amicable, the party who vacates the marital residence may simply obtain quarters adequate for sleeping and little more such as a spare room at a friend's residence, their old bedroom at their parent's house or similar. They will continue to provide the bulk of their income to the family for household expenses and be comfortable "getting by" for the interim. Unfortunately, this period of time can establish a precedent and, if a divorce complaint is filed, either the supported or supporting spouse can find themselves in a very difficult financial situation without enough assets for themselves if a judge decides a motion for pendente lite support using this period of separation as the model for the "marital standard." If you are considering divorce, prior to leaving your residence, you should consult with an experienced divorce attorney in order to discuss your needs, your family's needs and your financial situation. An experienced family law attorney can protect you from finding yourself with a pendente lite support order which will leave you financially destitute. For more information about divorce, child support, custody, emancipation and other family law issues in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Father Ordered To Participate In Parenting Time With Daughter

R.R. v. L.A.C., is a matrimonial divorce action focusing on parenting time in which the Plaintiff (the non-custodial parent) did not answer the Complaint but attended the default divorce hearing and asked to voice his apprehensions about having parenting time with his daughter. The Plaintiff, the father, worked full-time and the Defendant, mother, worked part time earning minimum wage and lived with the parties' daughter. At the default divorce hearing the Plaintiff requested a divorce with the possibility of future parenting time "when [he] [was] ready." The Defendant requested that the Plaintiff be available to help raise their child. The Plaintiff emigrated from Peru to the United States in 1987. He returned to Peru years later and the parties married there in 1993. They lived separate and apart for the majority of their marriage after he returned to the United States in 1997. Although he returned to Peru a few times he did not see his wife and daughter from 2002 through 2013 when he sponsored their emigration from Peru in 2013. The parties' daughter had no recollection of her father. Difficulties within this family emerged immediately because the Plaintiff desired to live separate and apart from his family with little involvement in their lives. Further, the child, who was thirteen years old, was having extreme difficulties assimilating into the American school system. She was constantly bullied due to her cleft palate, hearing loss, and impaired speech. Seeing no way out, the Defendant sent the child back to Peru to live with her maternal grandmother. Within a few months, the child returned to the United States to be with her mother. During the default hearing, the judge noticed the child sitting in the back of the courtroom and with the aid of an interpreter asked her questions about her relationship with her father. She meekly asked the court ". . . if it [was] possible for him [her father] to see [her] once a week," and then hesitated and requested that she would like "to give him a hug." The court then questioned the father who explained that he was very uncomfortable about seeing his daughter and that he was not ready to spend time with her without the aid of therapists. According to the court, a custodial parent is entitled to the non-custodial parent's assistance. Non-custodial parents should assist custodial parents in raising and nurturing their children unless there is a Court Order prohibiting them from doing so. Further, the court has the equitable authority to facilitate parenting time between children and absent parents, to order counseling, and to require parents to complete parenting programs and "in promoting the child's welfare, the Court should [make] every effort to attain for the child the affection of both parents." In re Jackson, 13 N.J. Super. 144, 147-48, 80 A.2d 306 (App. Div. 1951). "The Family Court possesses broad equitable powers to accomplish substantial justice." Finger v. Zenn, 335 N.J. Super. 438, 446, 762 A.2d 702 (App. Div. 2000). In this case, the court entered an Order requiring the Plaintiff to call his daughter and see her weekly and identified low cost counseling and programs that promoted fathering skills. If you believe that a modification to your parenting time schedule or plan 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, parenting time, equitable distribution, 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 if an attorney.

Child Custody Decision Reversed For Unaccepted Science

In the recent Appellate Division case, M.A. v. A.I., the Defendant, A.I., appealed from a 2011 Court Order, awarding, M.A., the Plaintiff sole legal and residential custody of the parties' children so that the Plaintiff and the children could engage in a reunification program and denying reconsideration of a prior Order. In this case, the Defendant had not had authorized contact with his children in two years and the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a quick determination regarding his parenting time because the Family Court relied upon scientific evidence that was not widely accepted in the social science community. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married in 1989. Their marriage bore two (2) children. In 2007, their marriage began to fall apart and both children became hostile toward their mother. After the Plaintiff filed for divorce the children refused to spend time with her. A therapist was enlisted to help the children deal with the situation, but to no avail. In 2009, the Plaintiff filed a Motion with the court to compel the parties and the children to continue to attend family therapy with a therapist, to establish a parenting schedule, and to appoint a guardian at litem (GAL) for the children. In 2011, the Family Court determined that it was within the best interests of the children if they were to have relationships with both parents. The court realized that the children's relationship with the Plaintiff was in deep distress and needed instant help. The court ordered that the Plaintiff and her children participate in a family intervention program and sole legal and physical custody of the children was awarded to the Plaintiff on that date and during which the Defendant was to not have un-authorized contact with the children. In its findings, the court held that the Defendant engaged in behavior that amounted to alienation of the Plaintiff. In his appeal, the Defendant argued that the Family Court erred in awarding sole custody of the children to the Plaintiff and prohibiting him from having contact with them. The Appellate Court declined to address whether the Family Court was mistaken to award sole custody of the children to the Plaintiff. The record reflected that the determinations of the Family Court were made so that the family could secure the services of the family intervention program and the court viewed the ruling as an interim measure. However, the Appellate Division found that the Family Court erred in basing its decision in part on eight Parental Alienation Syndrome criteria that the judge drew upon from literature and testimony. Under N.J.R.E. 702, if scientific evidence will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert to testify on the specific issue is required and the science must be generally accepted in the scientific community. Dehanes v. Rothman, 158 N.J. 90, 100 (1999). At the time of the hearing, Parental Alienation Syndrome was not recognized by the DSM-IV and is not yet accepted as a scientifically accepted theory. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded the decision of the Family Court back for a parenting time and custody hearing to be conducted immediately. 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, 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.

Denial Of Petition To Relocate Child Out Of United States Is Appealed

In a recent Appellate Division child relocation case, Gertseva v. Stamper, the Plaintiff, Lidia Gertseva appealed from part of a Family Court Order from 2012 that prohibited either party from removing their daughter from the United States without the express consent of the other party or a Court Order permitting such a removal. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the lower court. The parties in this matter obtained a divorce in 2008. During their marriage, the Plaintiff gave birth to a daughter who was eight years old at the time of this litigation. In 2008, the Family Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion which sought permission to relocate with the parties' daughter to Russia and specified that the Plaintiff and the Defendant, James R. Stamper, would share joint legal custody over the child, New Jersey would retain jurisdiction over the child, and the that the Plaintiff would have to follow the parenting time schedule established in the Court Order. The Plaintiff and her daughter relocated to Russia for about one year before returning to the United States to live in Virginia. In 2012, the Plaintiff filed another Motion seeking to modify the Court ordered parenting time schedule and to name her as the custodian of her daughter's passport. In the judge's Order it was specified that the Plaintiff could take the child to Russia for the Christmas holiday and that the child's passport "shall be provided upon request for travel when necessary to the parting travelling" with their daughter. Finally, the judge included that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant is allowed to remove the child from the United States without the written consent of the other parent or by Order of the court. The Plaintiff appealed from this decision. According to the Appellate Division, "More than financial contests, custody and parenting time disputes trigger the need for a family judge, acting as parens patriae, to prevent harm and protect the best interests of children." Parish v. Parish, 412 N.J. Super. 39, 52-53 (App. Div. 2010). In its holding, the Appellate Court found that upon its review of the record, the Family Court judge did not exceed or abuse his parens patriae authority to act in the best interest of the child. The record reflected that there were recurrent disputes between the parties about their daughter's travel out of the country and her absence from school. The Family Court judge's Order reflected his concern with this, in that he narrowed the time the daughter could be out of the country and ordered when she would return to school. The Appellate Court noted that since the Plaintiff had returned to America for an extended duration of time and because she no longer resided in Russia, it found that there was no reason to revisit the issue of child relocation either by consent or by application to the court. If the Plaintiff desired to relocate to relocate with the child to Russia in the future, the Family Court would be capable of rendering a decision on the facts as they exist at that time. 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. If you are involved in a child relocation dispute it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information on child relocation, child support, post judgment modification, divorce, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit Darlingfirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Same-Sex Couples In NJ Should Check Twice Prior to Relocation

There is no denying that as marriage equality and same-sex marriage is becoming legal throughout the nation, gay and lesbian couples who are divorcing need to inform themselves on the legal considerations that may impact the their divorce. Divorce proceedings are extremely arduous on all couples, but may even be more complex for gay and lesbian couples who move out of their state and who have children. For instance, although New Jersey currently recognizes marriage equality, if a couple who is legally married in New Jersey chooses to move to another state during their marriage that does not recognize same-sex marriage there could be repercussions if the couple later decides to get a divorce. Federal laws may not address all of the issues that may arise in a same-sex divorce proceedings despite the fact that gay and lesbian couples are now afforded the same federal benefits as heterosexual married couples. Therefore, if a gay married couple decides to move out of the state where they were legally married it is very important that they inform themselves about the marriage laws in their new state of residence. For instance, the couple should seek out information regarding the state's recognition of second-parent adoption or whether or not grandparents' have the right to seek custody of children. If the couple signed any agreements before their legal marriage was executed, each party may wish to re-acquaint themselves with the particulars of the agreement to ascertain whether or not any provisions will affect the divorce process, specifically regarding the continued care and custody of any minor children. It may also be important for a party to realize that they should not change any of their visiting patterns with their child simply because the other party compels them to. A court may review the consistency of parenting time and visitation when making decisions regarding child custody. No one should assume that simply because one parent may be the biological parent and the other and adoptive parent that a court will automatically award custody to the biological parent. If you are a gay or lesbian couple who plans on seeking a legal marriage or filing for a same-sex divorce 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, civil union 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.

Risk Assessment Is Required if Requested By A Party in NJ Parenting Time Decisions

A New Jersey statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(3)(a) requires a risk assessment prior to the entry of a parenting time order if either party requests one. This statute is designed to protect children but has potential for abuse by a resentful party. Because a risk assessment may be ordered when establishing the initial parenting time or any time thereafter for modification motions, it is one which may be used by a resentful party against another to cause further stress during or after the dissolution of a relationship in which children are involved. Fortunately, if the Court finds that the request is arbitrarily designed to cause difficulty for the defending party and has no real basis, the court need not order a risk assessment. In many situations risk assessment requests will not be ordered by the court. However, in cases where this is a final restraining order (FRO) against the party, there are concerns about drug or alcohol use, there are signs of inadequate supervision during parenting time and similar issues, the court will have reason to order a risk assessment. During the pendency of the risk assessment, parenting time may be limited or suspended. Risk assessment is a lengthy process which involves a court appointed professional meeting with each party to make an evaluation then preparing a report to the judge which will likely be relied on by the judge in making the final decision after a hearing in which both parties appear after the report is complete. When being assessed, either party may provide statements, witnesses, medical records and other evidence to prove their case. If you are seeking or defending a change in custody in which you believe a risk assessment will or should be involved you need an experienced family law attorney by your side to protect your rights. For more information on parenting time, custody, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership, alimony, child support or other family 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.

Non-Custodial Parent's Obligation for College Costs in NJ

In a recent Appellate case, Caruso v. Whitlock, in which the parties were the parents of a child to which the father had no relationship with and had no input into the college selection, the court again upheld the prior decision of Newburgh v. Arrigo. The Appellate Court found that the Court must consider “all relevant factors” including, but not limited to: (i) whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed towards the costs of the requested higher education; (ii) the effect of the background, values and goals of the parents on the reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher education; (iii) the amount of the contribution sought by the child for the cost of high education; (iv) the ability of the parent to pay that cost; (v) the relationship of the requested contribution to the kind of school or course of study sought by the child; (vi) the financial resources of both parties; (vii) the commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education; (viii) the financial resources of the child, including assets owned individually or held in custodianship or trust; (ix) the ability of the child to earn income during the school year or on vacation; (x) the availability of financial aid in the form of college grants and loans; (xi) the child’s relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance; and (xii) the relationship of the education requested to any prior training and to the overall long-range goals of the child. Although the Court in Caruso, did not specifically cite Newburgh, the Court did discuss with the parties during the hearing most of the Newburgh factors. Nonetheless, the Appellate Court felt that all the factors were not considered. This decision reminds the Court that the parent’s ability to pay, the parent/child relationship and the child’s ability to contribute with their own assets and obtaining a job must be included in the decision as to whether there should be a college contribution by the non-custodial parent and if so, the amount. If you are considering post judgment college contribution issues, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on child support, parenting time/visitation, modifications or other family law matters in Bergen, Hudson, Union, Essex, Morris, Passaic, Sussex or Warren New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Emancipation Event May Be Defined By Parties

A father’s motion to emancipate his son was remanded to the trial court for a hearing as to the parties’ intent. The New Jersey Appellate Court held that the parties could define an emancipation event and each party’s intent at the time the agreement was formed required consideration by the trial judge. The Appellate Court further held that, in considering this emancipation request of a 19 year old taking only one class at Bergen Community College and estranged from the father seeking the emancipation, the Family Part Judge could not interpret the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement without a plenary hearing. The Appellate Division set forth the factors the trial court must way in making a decision as to whether continuing child support at the agreed upon, or existing, level is equitable. The factors include whether any change in income is permanent or temporary, whether any reduction of income on the part of either party is in bad faith, whether any change in income was voluntary and the obligor's ability to pay at the time of the motion for reduction. If you are seeking or fighting a change in child support, 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 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.

Removal of a Child From Their Native Country Under the Laws of NJ

The Hague Convention is an international law into which countries may enter for the purposes of international cooperation. The Hague Convention has been signed by 89 countries. Haiti, Nepal and the Russian Federation have signed but not ratified. The Hague Convention has sections pertaining to international abduction of a child. One sections requires the return of a child wrongfully removed from their habitual residence as long as the action for return is filed within one year of the date the child is removed. Any application filed after one year requires the court to consider whether the child is well-settled in the new country of residence. Exceptions to the one year timeframe include a showing that the abducting parent has taken steps to conceal the child's whereabouts from the parent seeking return or there is grave risk of harm to the child by the receiving state or family members therein. There are defenses which may be asserted by the parent who removed the child from their native country. In the event the other parent consented to removal, the court will not force a return of the child to their habitual residence. If the child is old enough to make such a decision, the child may decide whether they wish to stay in the country to which they have been removed or return to their habitual residence. Finally, if there is grave risk of physical or psychological harm to the child in their new residence, the court will order the return of the child to their habitual residence. 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 to remove a child from or have a child returned to another state or territory, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on relocating with children, child custody, 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.

Rights of Unmarried and Same-Sex Parents in NJ

Applicable to both heterosexual and same-sex partners, a recent NJ court decision offers hope to the Parent of Alternate Residence (PAR) when it comes to parenting time. Often the Parent of Primary Residence (PPR) will make it difficult for the other parent to see the children. In the case of unmarried heterosexual couples parenting time issues are frequently more difficult for fathers than for fathers in relationships where the child was born during wedlock. For same-sex couples in which the child is born prior to a civil union, or there simply is no civil union, and the non-biological parent does not have opportunity to adopt prior to the dissolution of the relationship, parenting time issues can become even more difficult. In both cases, there is hardship due to certain long-time presumptions by the courts about children being born to a married mother who stayed at home and raised those children and father who worked to support the wife and children which have not yet changed to meet the diverse relationships that now exist. Even in the case of dissolution of marriage, the father who worked to support the family and finds himself divorced often finds the other party withholding or denying parenting time. In the case of Ewing v. Hart, the NJ Appellate Court held that (1) a mother who moved to Florida with the children and denied summer and holiday visitation time to the father was in contempt of court; (2) charged the mother with custodial interference and signaled she may be required to return the children to NJ if the mother did not cease her interference with the father's parenting time; and (3) permitted the father to file a motion for a change in custody in the event the mother continued to deny the father parenting time as ordered. Although the mother and father were never married, the court refused to take a prejudicial position against the father. 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 involved in a dispute regarding child custody or parenting time, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on dissolution of a marriage, civil union or domestic partnership, child custody or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.