Domestic Partner Challenges Equitable Distribution In PSA

In R.R. v. R.N., the Plaintiff appealed from a 2013 Court Order which enforced the parties' property settlement agreement (PSA) and denied the Plaintiff's Motion regarding equitable distribution for leave to sell real property owned by the parties. The parties in this case began a romantic relationship in 1999 and entered into a domestic partnership in 2005. In 2011, the parties entered into an agreement regarding their property. The agreement provided that the parties' real property located in Ocean Grove, New Jersey was converted from a joint tenancy to a tenancy in common with two-thirds owned by the Plaintiff and one-third owed by the Defendant. The Defendant possessed the sole right to occupy the property for ten (10) years from the date of the execution of the agreement and was "responsible for all carrying costs" which included utilities, repairs, taxes, and assessments. The agreement provided that the Defendant had the option to purchase the Plaintiff's share at the end of the ten (10) year term. Further, if the Defendant wished to sell his share before the end of the time period, he would have had to offer the share to the Plaintiff for $100,000 and if the Plaintiff did not purchase the share the property it was to be sold by a realtor and the proceeds split between the parties. Shortly after the agreement was signed, the parties' relationship deteriorated in early 2011. Following a trial, the court awarded the Plaintiff with a Final Restraining Order against the Defendant for stalking and harassment. In 2012, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint to force the partition of the parties' real property. In 2013, a Family Court judge denied the Plaintiff's request to force the sale of the property, holding that the parties had already resolved and agreed upon aspects of the real property in a negotiated agreement. The Plaintiff appealed from this decision arguing that the agreement between the parties was no longer enforceable because of the Defendant's subsequent acts of domestic violence and the institution of a Final Restraining Order making the joint ownership of the property inequitable. According to the Appellate Court, decisions regarding the granting of equitable remedies are left to the discretion of the trial courts and are not disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse or discretion. Feigenbaum v. Guaracini, 402 N.J. Super. 7, 17 (App. Div. 2008). The trial court in this case, found that the parties had carefully crafted and negotiated their agreement and the provisions of the agreement were clear and unambiguous and the Plaintiff had "not shown a basis for abrogating the Agreement and requiring sale of property earlier than required by the Agreement." The settlement of litigation is important to public policy in the state of New Jersey and domestic settlement agreements are enforceable in equity and contract as long as they are not unconscionable, fraudulent or overreaching. Harrington v. Harrington, 281 N.J. Super. 39, 46 (App. Div. 1995). Therefore the decision of the Family Court was affirmed. The equitable distribution of assets often leaves both parties with great trepidation about their financial futures making it one of the most sensitive aspects of a relationship dissolution. If you are involved in a battle over the division of property, assets, or debts it is extremely important that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about equitable distribution, post-judgment modification, domestic partnership dissolution, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Do You Need A Written Agreement To Get Palimony?

In order to get a court to award you financial support known as "Palimony" from your former lover, even if you lived together, verbal promises of support are not enough under the new law in New Jersey. You will need to show the Court a formal written "cohabitation" or "Palimony" agreement which addresses the division of property, support, the division of joint debts, possible custody and/or parenting time issues if there are children, as well as other relevant issues. The courts look to the 2010 amendments enacted by the state legislature to the "statute of frauds" (N.J.S.A. 25:1-5) which created the requirement that in order for a "palimony" promise or agreement to be valid in this state, it must be in a signed written document and entered into with the advice of independent counsel for both parties, much like a pre-marital agreement. If you are contemplating living with your significant other, as is becoming more popular in New Jersey, who has promised to continue to take care of you "forever," and you do not want to get married or enter into a civil union, you should enter into a formal written agreement to protect your future rights to support, and for both real and personal property, in the event you break up or in case your partner passes away. If you want to establish a formal "palimony" or "cohabitation" agreement in New Jersey then you should consult with an experienced NJ family lawyer. For more information about palimony agreements, cohabitation agreements, child custody, visitation, divorce, child support or any other type of family law matter in New Jersey please visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Religion and Education Decisions To Be made By Both Parents Regardless Of Custody

In all custody and parenting matters, the best interests of the child are to be considered ahead of all by the court. The best interests of the child also must prevail when the court is forced to decide disputes relating to major decisions in the child's life such as medical, educational or religious matters. In the recent case of Phillips v. Emerson, the parents were born and raised under different religions but neither practiced their religion during the marriage. When the parties divorced, Phillips was named the parent of primary residence and Emerson was named the parent of alternate residence. Phillips later remarried and began to participate more in religious activities with her new husband. Approximately 10 years after the parties' divorce, Phillips enrolled the parties' child in Catholic school without discussion with or consent from Emerson. Emerson raised issue with the court on the basis that the enrollment in Catholic school was intended solely as a means to further distance him from the parties' daughter due to his Jewish upbringing. The NJ Appellate Division held that a plenary hearing was required to determine what was in the best interests of the child and that neither party should unilaterally make a decision of such import. If you are seeking or fighting a change in custody, 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.

Proposition 8 in the U.S. Supreme Court

After the first day of the United States Supreme Court hearings relating to same-sex marriage, as they considered California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, little is known about what the Supreme Court will decide. In fact, from Justice Kennedy's comments, whether the Supreme Court will decide the question of Proposition 8 at all is on the minds of those following this issue which will make so much difference for so many. Yesterday's comments by Justice Kennedy regarding the Court's need to tread lightly when entering "uncharted waters" and that reference to the destination in the court's decision being "a cliff" left some believing that the U.S. Supreme Court may dismiss Proposition 8 and leave the issue of gay marriage to the states for at least another year. If the Supreme Court dismisses the matter of Proposition 8, only California would be affected. Gay and lesbian marriages in California could proceed but the issue of same-sex marriage in other states would not be impacted. The statements of the Justices will now weigh on the minds of many until June when the decision is expected. Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments as to whether the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be struck down. DOMA denies federal benefits to married gay and lesbian couples even in states where same sex marriage is recognized and accompanied by the benefits thereof. As of now, 30 states have constitutional amendments which prohibit same-sex marriage and there are only 9 states which recognize same-sex marriage. For more information on civil union, marriage, domestic partnership, pre-nuptial agreements, post-nuptial agreements, palimony agreements, dissolution, divorce, child support, custody, parenting time/visitation, adoption, 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.

Relief for Payors Suffering After High Net-Worth Divorce

In a recent post-judgment motion following a high net-worth divorce, a modification motion by payor resulted in a finding that the court must consider not only changes in the payor's income but also changes in the payee's income when hearing motions for modification. In Heard v. Dunbar The judge hearing the divorce did not include any findings regarding the terms of the parties' Property Settlement Agreement. Defendant earned $800,000 per year working at Goldman Sachs until 1997 when he resigned after accusations of fraudulent activity. The parties had saved $800,000 and defendant became a day trader working with their personal funds and increased the value of their investments to $8,000,000.00 by 2000, when the parties separated. In the next 2 years the value of the portfolio decreased to only $304. Defendant returned to the financial industry as the manager of a "start up" investment fund and earned only $15,000 in 2003 when the parties entered the Property Settlement Agreement (PSA). Plaintiff was employed as a psychologist and earned $52,000 per year in 2003. Although the defendant earned only $1250 per month, the PSA called for him to pay $1885 per month in child support. Although defendant later represented, in 2011, that the payment was based on the presumption he could return to his previously high earning levels, no information was set forth in the PSA regarding how this figure was arrived at other than to state it was in accordance with the "marital standard of living" but the standard of living during the marriage was not set forth in the agreement. The PSA also called for defendant to provide plaintiff $2,000,000 in assets as equitable distribution in lieu of alimony, pay up to $250,000 for the child's college tuition and obtain a $2,000,000 life insurance policy. Defendant ultimately developed a career in real estate and, by 2011, was earning $119,000 annually while plaintiff's income had increased to $115,000 per year. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforce the agreement and defendant filed a cross-motion to decrease his child support and college tuition obligations. An Essex County Family Court Judge denied defendant's motion finding no appreciable or permanent change in circumstances from 2003 to the present time, granted plaintiff's motion, failed to acknowledge plaintiff's substantial increase in income and made no findings regarding the denial of defendant's motion to reduce college payments and insurance. In its opinion, the New Jersey Appellate Court set forth the standards for modification as requiring consideration of the circumstances of both parties and that the reasons for all findings of fact be set forth clearly on the record. 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.

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.

Custody Change Children Prefer Different Parents

A father appealed the denial of his Motion for a change in custody of the parties' daughter. The father sought to change the primary residence of the parties' 15 year old daughter from the mother's residence to his own. The parties have 2 children, one boy and one girl, together and the father enjoyed liberal visitation as long as he resided within 20 miles of the mother, who was named parent of primary residence in the Property Settlement Agreement. The father moved outside the 20 mile radius and the mother's motion to reduce the father's parenting time was granted. The daughter specifically expressed her interest in residing with her father rather than her mother. The child advised that her interest in the custody change was based on concerns about her mother's parenting methods. Additionally, there was a parenting coordinator assigned to the matter which the judge below dismissed from the case. The judge below dismissed the motion as he did not believe the parties' children should live in separate residences. The judge expressed no findings that the children would be harmed by Amy's request for the change in custody, that changing schools would be to her detriment or that Amy was under undue influence by her father. Also, the judge held no plenary hearing prior to denial of the motion. The NJ Appeallate Court held that the judge erred in the failure to hold a plenary hearing as the facts clearly gave rise to a prima facie case of changed circumstances. The matter was remanded for a hearing in the event there remained a contest as the child was 16 years old by the time the appeal was decided. If you are seeking or fighting a change in custody, 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.

Unfounded Abuse and Neglect Ruling Reversed by NJ Appellate Court

A mother was charged with abuse and neglect after drinking beer and taking Xanax after her children were put to bed for the night. The woman's husband was not the biological father but was present at all times and was able to provide care to the children if needed. There was no showing that the children needed the care of the mother after they were put to bed. The children were regularly left in the care of the woman's husband and there was no threat to their safety when they were in his care. The New Jersey Appellate Court reversed the decision finding the record below inadequate to establish that abuse and neglect occurred or that the children were in danger. If you are facing charges of abuse and neglect or your children have been removed by D.Y.F.S., you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on removal, abuse and neglect, D.Y.F.S., 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.

Preglimony- Will NJ See a New Support Obligation? And a Man's Right to Choose?

Based upon older laws, men's support obligations presently begin at birth. Through DNA testing, parties can now know parentage long before birth. As a result, there is now the opportunity for an unmarried mother to receive contribution for costs associated with unborn children including medical bills, maternity clothes lost income and other expenses. This obligation may exist even if the mother miscarries or the pregnancy is terminated. In fact, the father could also be looked to for abortion costs. This concept is ripe for litigation of issues from the tax treatment of preglimony, as deductible to the father and income to the mother like alimony or not tax-affected like child support, to the much more significant issue of whether the sole right to choose whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy would then rest with the woman or both parties. Preglimony could lead men who would otherwise pressure women into unprotected sex to cease the practice, preventing unwanted pregnancy and disease. Alternatively, unwed women who become pregnant are often pressured to abort the pregnancy and imposing preglimony could certainly increase the pressure and in some cases abuse. Although preglimony is not presently charged to men or available to women, expect to see significant legal activity regarding this issue in the future. 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.

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.

Details Are Critical In Property Settlement Agreements

It is well established law that a substantial change of circumstance is required to warrant a modification of support. Aronson v. Aronson Being specific and detailed you are when drafting Property Settlement or Matrimonial Settlement Agreement between two parties is beneficial beyond words. The parties should include all the assets and liabilities accrued during the marriage even if it seems tedious, i.e. last four digits of account numbers, dollar amounts, etc. In addition, a paragraph describing the “standard of living” enjoyed during the marriage by the spouses and children should be included. As evidenced by the recent New Jersey Appellate Division case, Heard v. Dunbar, details as to how the parties’ incomes were established and the support obligations were calculated is imperative. In Heard, the Defendant requested a modification to his child support, college contribution and life insurance obligations. Although there was a Property Settlement Agreement, the parties were not specific as to how their incomes or the support obligation was calculated. In addition, the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage was not defined either. The Heard Court made it clear that a change to either parties’ income, increase or decrease, should be taken into account when considering a modification request. Unfortunately, the omission in the parties’ Agreement as to what the payments were based on made the Court incapable to make decisions regarding the modification of support without further discovery and/or a plenary hearing. If you are seeking or fighting a post-judgment modification, 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.

No Alimony to Embezzling Spouse in NJ

When a spouse commits "extraordinary, flagrant economic misconduct during the marriage" the court may deny her any further economic relief in the event of a divorce according the New Jersey Appellate Division's findings in Clark v. Clark. In Clark, the wife worked as bookkeeper in her husband's pharmacy and the husband afforded the wife an equal one-half interest in the business. Evidence was presented that a 2006 divorce proceeding filed by the wife was withdrawn when she learned the divorce may lead to discovery of her substantial embezzlement from the business In 2008 the husband filed for divorce and did discover the wife's embezzlement. Hunterdon County Family Part Judge Hany Mawla found the wife stole approximately $350,000 from the business and ordered her to repay that sum but also found her financially dependent and awarded her $600 per week in alimony. The Appellate Court held that, in spite of the rule that fault is not a bar to alimony, in this case the misconduct was so significant the wife may be barred from receiving alimony. The Appellate Division remanded the case to the Superior Court for reconsideration of the matter with the wife's misconduct in mind. If you are seeking a divorce and know or strongly believe your spouse's behavior has drastically altered your lifestyle financially you should speak with an experienced family law attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information on alimony, support, equitable distribution, child support, palimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership 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.

Spousal Misconduct May Bar Alimony in NJ

In New Jersey, spousal misconduct is typically no bar to receipt of alimony to that spouse even in the event of adultery or significant depletion of the parties' funds. In Mani v Mani, 183 N.J 70 (2005) the NJ Supreme Court set forth two exceptions to this rule pertaining to financial matters between the parties. One exception is where the conduct of a spouse "affects the parties' economic life." The second exception comes into play when the actions of a spouse "so violate societal norms that continuing the economic bonds between the parties would confound notions of simple justice." If you are seeking a divorce and know or strongly believe your spouse's behavior has drastically altered your lifestyle financially you should speak with an experienced family law attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information on alimony, support, equitable distribution, child support, palimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership 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.

How Long is Too Long To Seek Alimony After a Divorce in NJ?

A woman who obtained a Final Judgment of Divorce by default in 1974 filed a motion seeking alimony and child support in 2011 after locating defendant in a Google search. The plaintiff claimed defendant left the country in 1993 and she was unable to locate him. The defendant countered that he was only absent from the country for a few months, never changed his name and always listed his number in the phone book. The Superior Court ordered alimony from the time of the divorce through plaintiff's second marriage and child support from time of divorce until the children's 18th birthdays setting the arearage amount at $144,950. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted and the order was vacated due to plaintiff's failure to assert her known right to seek financial support within a reasonable amount of time. Additionally, the plaintiff presented no evidence that she sought the defendant or financial support from him during the 37 years in between the divorce and her motion. Finally, the children are grown adults who had not seen plaintiff since 1974. In any legal matter, the doctrine of latches acts to prevent parties who have not made efforts to enforce their rights from unfairly prejudicing others by seeking relief much later when evidence is gone, great prejudice would result or other equitable reasons. If you believe you have a right to relief within the court, seek an experienced attorney immediately to insure you are not waiving your rights by failure to act. For more information on your legal rights in matrimonial, civil union, domestic partnership, child support, alimony, palimony or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Minimum Degree of Care for a Minor by a Parent in NJ

In a recent case, the New Jersey Appellate Court held that a parent appearing or being under the influence while children are in their care does not necessarily rise to the level that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP, formerly known as DYFS)needs to become involved under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4). The question that must be answered is whether the intoxication of the parent rose to a level that the parent failed to provide a minimum degree of care, when no actual harm has befallen the child, but instead only a risk of harm has been proven. The answer to this question must be viewed on a case by case basis taking into account the dangers and risks associated with the specific facts of the case. The parent's inebriation must directly cause their inability to care for their children. Justice Long held that "where a parent or guardian acts in a grossly negligent or reckless manner, that deviation from the standard of care may support an inference that the child is subject to future danger. To the contrary, where a parent is merely negligent there is no warrant to infer that the child will be at future risk." The DCPP must prove that the parent's condition was produced by a grossly negligent or reckless act that placed the child in imminent danger or substantial risk of harm. For more information on Division of Child Protection and Permanency, child support, spousal support, palimony, alimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. Post contributed by Doreen L. Neggia This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Gay Marriage Cases to Be Heard By US Supreme Court in 2013

2013 will definitely be a year to remember as the United States Supreme Court announced it has decided to hear two gay marriage cases, California's ban on gay marriages and the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Although not New Jersey cases, the impact for New Jersey residents could be considerable. Even though New Jersey recognizes Civil Unions, same-sex marriages are not recognized. In addition, Domestic Partnerships that were previously entered remain valid, however, new domestic partnerships are available only to couples in which both partners are at least 62 years old. In reviewing DOMA, enacted in 1996, the US Supreme Court will review the way things such as health insurance, medical leave, taxes and similar issues will be handled for same-sex couples. President Obama publicly announced his administration would no longer defend DOMA, as it violated the equal protection guarantees of the United States Constitution, and multiple state courts have declared the law unconstitutional. In reviewing California's Proposition 8 matter, the Supreme Court will directly address the fundamental question of whether same-sex couples have the right to marry. Although the New Jersey Senate and the New Jersey House of Representatives passed the Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act, Governor Chris Christie vetoed it. Governor Christie made clear his choice was not to allow "political maneuvering" to decide the issue but to allow LGBT proponents to bring the issue to the ballot where the people of New Jersey can make the final decision on whether same-sex marriage will stand in this state. For information regarding same-sex law in New Jersey, including civil unions, domestic partnerships, adoption, dissolution, custody, child support, support agreements, property division or other legal concerns of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender couples 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.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Meet Today to Consider Same-Sex Marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court Justices will meet today to decide whether they will accept any of 10 appeals pending before them regarding same-sex marriage. If any of the appeals is accepted, the argument will be whether there is a fundamental constitutional right to gay and lesbian marriage. Although six states have approved same-sex marriage and other states have approved various forms thereof which do not afford all rights associated with heterosexual marriage, there is presently no recognition by the federal government of same-sex marriage. Lack of recognition of same-sex marriage by the U.S. government deprives gays and lesbians of the benefits of obtaining spousal social security benefits, pension benefits, family medical leave protection, filing joint federal tax returns and bankruptcy benefits. Deprivation of these benefits to those in long-term, monogamous same-sex relationships can have devastating results over a lifetime. If any of the appeals is accepted, no decision will likely be made until the middle of 2013 but same-sex partners around the country await the Justices decision on the appeal today. For information regarding same-sex law in New Jersey, including civil unions, domestic partnerships, adoption, dissolution, custody, child support, support agreements, property division or other legal concerns of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender couples 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.

Child Support Modifications Are Not Retroactive in NJ

In a post-judgment motion for modification of child support the court imputed plaintiff, a nurse with no demonstrated disabilities income of $65,000, for purposes of calculating child support and imputed defendant, a painter, $35,000 for purposes of calculating child support. The court modified child support according to the incomes imputed and made it retroactive to a date preceding the filing of defendant's modification motion. The New Jersey Appellate Court reversed the retroactive modification as contrary to New Jersey Statue 2A:17-5:6.23a which limits the modification of child support to the date upon which a motion for modification is filed. The court also reversed the imputation of income to defendant because it was not supported by his case information statement. 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.

Past Due Support Can Affect Your NJ Business

If you are obligated to pay child support to a former spouse or domestic partner you, and your business partners, may be shocked when your business interest is attached by them. Although they may only attach your interest, a former spouse or partner who obtains a judgment against you for past due child support can affect your business by tying it up in litigation and creating strife among you and the other members of your limited liability company (LLC). New Jersey Statute 42:2B-45 allows a judgment creditor to attach the interest of a debtor in any limited liability company in which they are a member. This judgment will not attach to the interest of any other LLC members but litigation as to what your specific interest in the LLC is can create enough tension to result in dissolution, or your being forced out of the LLC by the other members. If you are seeking to collect or defending against collection of a large amount of past due child or spousal support you should contact a family law attorney with small business divorce experience immediately to protect your rights. For more information on child support, spousal support, palimony, alimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership 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.

Does Prenatal Use of Illicit Drugs Constitute Unfitness to Parent in NJ

The New Jersey Supreme Court heard the case of DYFS v. A.L., regarding whether prenatal drug use, specifically cocaine and marijuana, by a mother must result in a finding of unfitness to parent. Both the trial judge and appellate division ruled that the mother's prenatal use of cocaine resulted in abuse and neglect. The mother's attorney argued that a showing of harm to the child is required in order for the court to reach a determination of unfitness to parent. The State argued that prenatal use of drugs in the face of existing evidence of harm to children resulting from prenatal drug use is enough for a finding of unfitness to parent. A question raised by Justice Anne Patterson was also whether a pregnant woman legally taking prescription drugs, in spite of notice of potential danger to the child, could also be guilty of abuse and neglect. The State clarified that in the event there is harm to the child from a mother's use of prescription drugs, the mother's rights are protected. If you or your children's other parent are seeking a modification of custody, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on DYFS,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.