Women Still Face Unequal Rights in NJ

If the wife of an infertile man has a child through artificial insemination, the man is presumed to be the father and all rights of paternity vest in that man. The laws of nature prevent a man from bearing a woman's child and the laws of New Jersey prevent an infertile woman from being listed on the birth certificate of a child born to a gestational carrier artificially inseminated by the wife's husband. Not only has the court opted to deprive infertile women of equal rights to infertile men but the New Jersey Court, in the Matter of the Parentage of a Child by T.J.S. and A.L.S., expressed concern for gestational carriers over infertile women. However, gestational carriers and infertile mothers both entered a contract on equal terms, along with the husband of the infertile woman, in which the gestational carrier agreed that the child would know the infertile woman as its mother from the time of birth. For the court to step in and say the infertile woman may not be listed on the birth certificate while saying an infertile man is presumed to be the father and listed on the birth certificate is placing women in the status of property and is discriminatory. If you are seeking custody of a child, fighting a change in custody or considering adoption, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on child custody, paternity, child support, 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.

Court Fails to Consider Intent of Domestic Violence Statutes

Under the New Jersey domestic violence statutes, the non-abusive spouse is to receive custody of the children barring extenuating circumstances. New Jersey Statute 2C:25-29b(11) includes a presumption that the best interests of the children are served by an award of custody to the non-abusive parent. Additionally, exclusive possession of the marital residence is granted to the non-abusive party and the best interests of the children are further served by remaining in the home they are accustomed to. In the recent case, J.D. v. M.A.D., the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the decision of the trial court which continued the parties agreement granting the abusive defendant temporary custody of the parties' children and possession of the martial home. The trial court erroneously held that defendant should continue as the primary caregiver of to the parties children. The trial court failed to properly consider that Defendant became the primary caregiver and obtained sole custody of the marital residence after excluding wife therefrom following multiple episodes of domestic violence when he discovered she was having an affair. The basis of the Appellate Division's reversal was the intent of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act to protect victims of domestic violence. The N.J. Appellate Division also pointed to the correlation between domestic violence and child abuse in reversing the decision regarding who was to be primary caregiver. If you are facing a custody dispute as a result of a domestic violence matter, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on child custody, domestic violence, paternity, child support, 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.

More Relief For Child Support Obligors in NJ

In a case where the child support obligor demonstrated to the court an obvious change of circumstances, the Family Part judge was required to conduct a hearing as to the details of the parties’ current circumstances. Due to a decline in the residential real estate market, the obligor suffered a significant and, likely long term change in circumstances. During that same time, the obligee had a large increase in income which was also likely to be a permanent situation. The Family Part judge denied the obligor the opportunity for a plenary hearing when deciding the matter. The New Jersey Appellate Division instructed that when a party seeking relief in the courts makes an obvious showing, otherwise known as a prima facie showing, of changed circumstances the trial judge is then required to fully consider the matter. 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.

Gay NJ Man May Relocate to Gay Unfriendly State With Adopted Child Against Other Parent's Objections

In the recent case of A.G. v. R.R, (BER-FM-02-2258-09) the Bergen County Court ruled that a parent of primary residence with good intentions cannot be barred from relocating with the child to a state hostile to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) marriage without a showing of prejudice to the rights of the other parent. In A.G. v. R.R., the child was adopted while the parties were living in New Jersey, although they never entered into a civil union or domestic partnership. Upon separation, the parties entered into an agreement affording primary custody to A.G. and permitted him to relocate with the child from New Jersey to New York so that A.G. could pursue lucrative job opportunities. Following an injury rendering A.G. unable to perform the theater jobs for which he was well paid in New York, he received a lucrative job offer from an Atlanta, Georgia television production company and filed a Motion in the New Jersey Superior Court, Family Part, to relocate the child to Atlanta. R.R. opposed the Motion on the grounds that a 2004 amendment to the Georgia Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage and recognition of marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states. Judge Thurber held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution would require Georgia to uphold custody and parenting time orders issued by the New Jersey Courts. Judge Thurber rationalized that, if Georgia is hostile to the parental rights of R.R., he has a judicial remedy in the New Jersey Courts which have an interest in seeing their orders upheld. The Judge was careful to note that there was no example of a Georgia court refusing to recognize the rights of out-of-state adoptive parents. If you or your former partner are seeking to relocate a child against the wishes of the other parent, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on adoption, child support, custody, parenting time/visitation, dissolution of a civil union, domestic partnership or marriage, 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 Change in Custody in NJ Without a Hearing

In order to make a change in custody from the arrangement set forth under the terms of a Court Order or Property Settlement Agreement into which the parties freely and knowingly entered, the Court must hold a plenary hearing. A recent decision in the Essex County Superior Court, Family Part made a change in custody based solely on the recommendations of a court-appointed mediator. Originally, when plaintiff sought a change in custody, the parties agreed to retain a joint evaluator and enter into a consent order if they both agreed with the evaluator's recommendation. However, the parties and the court, further agreed that, if the decision of the evaluator was unacceptable to either party, that party could move for a hearing before the Court to determine whether the evaluator's recommendation should be implemented. The New Jersey Appellate Court reversed the superior Court ruling and reaffirmed a prior ruling in the case of G.C. v. M.Y. (287 N.J. super. 363, 368 (App.Div. 1995)) by stating that "unless there are exigent circumstances, changes in custody are not to be ordered without a plenary hearing." The exigent circumstances set forth were "evidence of imminent harm or threatened harm to the well-being of the child, there is no justification…[to make] a custody decision on an emergent basis, without a plenary hearing." 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 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 custody, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership, alimony, child support or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

College is a Reason For Child Support Modification in NJ

In Jacoby v. Jacoby, a case recently decided by the New Jersey Appellate Division, the Court held that “a child’s attendance at college is a change in circumstances. This deviation from the child support guidelines returns discretion to family part judges, to the point of being almost contrary to the imposition of Child Support Guidelines. Judges will now be required to take into account tuition, including housing, board, books and other fees. This may lead to an increase in support due to the child’s increased expenses. The court will also need to factor in the child’s ability to work, obtain scholarships or receive financial aid to offset the cost to parents. Many Property Settlement Agreements contemplate a continuation of child support throughout college, until the child is emancipated, and also include the manner in which the parents shall share in the children’s college tuition payments. Now, seeking a modification of child support can result in a deviation from the standards of the guidelines to combine these previously separated decided matters. 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 attempting to avoid a modification of your child support payments, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on child support, custody, alimony, divorce, dissolution of a civil union or domestic partnership or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

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.

Motions for Reconsideration in NJ Family Court

Due to the highly sensitive nature of family court matters, one or both of the parties is often unhappy with the decision of the judge in their matter. A party unhappy with the judge's decision has the right to seek reconsideration of that decision by following the appropriate guidelines and procedures. Two critical issues in deciding whether to seek reconsideration are burden of proof required to justify reconsideration and the timeliness of the Motion for Reconsideration. The controlling New Jersey Court Rule 4:49-2 states that the Motion must be served within 20 days of the service of judgment on all parties and must state the specific basis on which the Motion is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling decision which the party making the Motion believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has made an error in judgment. Courts often see Motions for Reconsideration because a party is unhappy with the judge's decision but there are occasions upon which there are pertinent facts or decisions overlooked in the initial hearing or there may simply be an error the judge's decision. In light of the fact that the instances in which a Motion for reconsideration is granted are rare, such Motions must be carefully drafted. Such Motions should only be sought after serious consideration is given to the matter and the likelihood of success seems strong. 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 reconsideration of a Family Court decision, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to determine the likelihood of meeting the criteria and in order to file timely. For more information on reconsideration, modification, alimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership, custody, child support or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

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.