In Child Relocation Case, Appeal Is Only Possible After An Adjudication

In the recent post-judgment matrimonial case, Russitano v. Russitano, John Russitano appealed from a 2012 Court Order that directed action based upon his ex-wife's Motion to relocate the parties' children to Alabama and recalculate his child support obligation. The Appellate Court could not rule on appeal because the Family Court Order did not issue a final disposition on issues involved with the case. The parties in this case were married in 2000 and three (3) children were born of the marriage. On June 27, 2011, they were divorced pursuant to a Final Judgment of Divorce with their own negotiated Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) incorporated. In 2012, the Defendant, Melissa Russitano, filed a Motion with the court to relocate with the children to Alabama and to modify the parties' PSA to increase John's child support obligation. John filed a cross-motion seeking a recalculation of his child support obligation and to enforce the parenting time provisions contained in the PSA. After hearing oral argument, the Family Court judge issued an order directing that the parties engage mediation to attempt to resolve the relocation issues and the custody and parenting time issues. The judge also ordered that John's child support obligation be re-evaluated based upon his three most recent pay stubs. John appealed from this Order. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the lower court holding that, although John disagrees with his ex-wife's request to relocate to Alabama with their children, he failed to challenge the lower court's order referring the parties to mediation or the determination to hold a plenary hearing on the removal of the children if the parties are unable to reach a decision. The Appellate Court concluded that the Family Court judge's order on this issue was not a final disposition of the issue at the time that the appeal was filed because the court had never ruled on Melissa's Motion requesting permission to relocate with the parties' children. As such, a party is required to seek leave to appeal according to Rule 2:5-6(a), and neither party did so. As required under Rule 2:2-3(a)(1), the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to consider appeals from "final judgments of the Superior Court trial divisions." In all other cases, jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory matter is only granted upon leave of the court. Rule. 2:2-4. Therefore, this claim was dismissed. Next, regarding the child support issue, the Family Court is given substantial discretion to determine child support awards and other support obligations based upon the ruling in Foust v. Glaser, 340 N.J. Super., 312, 315 (App. Div. 2001). In this case, the Appellate Division found no reason to disturb the ruling of the Family Court as there was no basis to do so as the lower court's decision to order a recalculation of the obligation was appropriate. Disputes regarding child relocation and child support 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 or child support 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 in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

A Glimpse Into Megan's Law Registrant Risk Assessment Scale in NJ

Megan's Law requires registration of sex offenders and bears certain notification criteria. In the Matter of Registrant P.B. was appealed following a decision by the Superior Court, Law Division in Bergen County. Every sex offender is subject to a risk assessment to determine their potential to reoffend. The Law Division Judge's ruling that his score be set at 54, in the mid-range of "risk to reoffend," and requiring notification to all local law enforcement, educational institutions and community organizations within a mile of his home. Additionally, his name was to appear on the sex offender registry. The score of 54 was based on the Judge's finding that P.B.'s possession of photographs of adults in acts of penetrating children amounted to penetration by P.B. Further, the judge held that possession of photographs satisfied the duration element of the assessment. On appeal, the Court held that the penetration element of the risk assessment is not satisfied by simply possessing photos of adults in penetrative activity with children. Further, the court held that, without evidence of time of possession, the duration of offensive behavior element could not be met and no points could be assessed. Without the 15 points assessed for penetration and the 3 points assessed for duration, P.B.'s score of 54 was reduced to 36 points, which placed him in the low range of scoring as it pertains to risk of reoffense. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. Sex offenses bear penalties which will affect you for the rest of your life, even if you reach a plea agreement that may seem favorable at first glance. If you have been charged with a sex crime you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on sex crimes or other criminal law matters, including municipal court matters, in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.