Child Support Award Affirmed In Deference To Trial Court

Kummarapurugo v. Thota, is a post-judgment matrimonial action wherein the Plaintiff appealed from a Family Court Order, issued in 2014 that recalculated his child support obligation to $272 per week, arguing that the court was mistaken in its calculation. The Family Court is afforded substantial discretion to determine child support awards and other support obligations. Foust v. Glaser, 340 N.J. Super. 312, 315 (App. Div. 2001). A child support order is always "subject to review and modification on a showing of changed circumstances." Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 146 (1980). "If consistent with the law, such an award will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or clearly contrary to reason or to other evidence, or the result of whim or caprice." Foust, supra, 340 N.J. Super. at 315-16. "When reviewing decisions granting or denying applications to modify child support, we examine whether, given the facts, the trial judge abused his or her discretion." J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J. 305, 325-26 (2013). The Plaintiff argued that the Family Court's determination of his child support obligation was unfair as modified because the court failed to consider the appropriate child support guidelines factors. The Defendant claimed that the judge made sufficient findings of fact to justify the support award. The Appellate Court agreed with the Defendant and affirmed the decision of the Family Court. In this case, the Appellate Court found that although the Family Court judge's findings were not a "paradigm of the findings required by N.J.C.R. 1:7-4," the facts on the record were sufficient to support the child support award. Further, the Family Court judge appropriately addressed the recalculation of child support through the application of the statutory factors. If you believe that a post-judgment modification to your child support obligation 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, child support, child relocation, child custody, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice if an attorney.

Child Support COLA Increase Defeated On Appeal

Legal issues that involve disputes regarding child support can be of the most emotional and difficult in all of family law because of the sensitive nature of the issues, Wexler v. Wexler, is a 2015 New Jersey case involving a party's post-judgment application to reduce his child support. The Plaintiff in this case appealed the decision of the Family Court disputing the trial judge's finding that his child support obligation should be increased due to a change in circumstances. The divorced parties in this case have two (2) children who are teenagers and were teenagers at the time this litigation commenced. At the time of their divorce each party had residential custody of one of the children and according to their final divorce judgment the Plaintiff was required to pay the Defendant $52 per week in child support. In 2011, the Defendant filed a Motion requesting residential custody of the child that was not living with her and for an increase in the Plaintiff's child support obligation. After the proceedings, the judge entered an order that, amongst other things, increased the Plaintiff's child support to $266 a week. Three days after the Order was issued, the Probation Division sent both parties a notice that the Plaintiff's weekly child support would be increased to $278 because of a "biennial cost-of-living adjustment (COLA)." Rule 5:6B(a) provides that "all orders and judgments that include child support . . . shall provide that the child support amount will be adjusted every two years to reflect cost of living." A few months later the Defendant filed a Motion to enforce the prior Order to require the Plaintiff to make his payments on time and in the full amount. Soon thereafter Probation requested that the court void their prior COLA increase of the Plaintiff's child support because it had been increased in the previous Order and therefore there was no basis for a COLA increase. Without knowledge of Probation's request, the Plaintiff filed a response to the Defendant's enforcement Motion and requested that the COLA be cancelled. In July 2013, a Family Court judge granted the Defendant's enforcement Motion and directed that the Plaintiff pay a $1,500 lump sum payment toward his arrears. The Plaintiff then filed another Motion requesting that the COLA be voided. The judge denied his request citing that "the Court entered a new child support obligation on July 31, 2013 for $278 based upon a change in circumstances." From this holding, the Plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division held that it owed substantial deference to the Family Court's decision. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998); MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 191 N.J. 240, 253-54 (2007). The court agreed with the Plaintiff that the Family Court judge mistakenly changed his child support obligation to $278 a week and therefore a change in circumstances was not the correct basis to make the increase. Being that there was no basis to raise the amount and because Plaintiff's obligation had recently been increased to $266 a week the Appellate Court reversed and remanded the case back to the Family Court to readjust the obligation. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your child support obligations it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child support, post-judgment modification , alimony, divorce 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.

Appellate Court Clarifies Standard For Emancipation In Post-Judgment Modification Case

In Disesso v. Disesso, the Appellate Court decided a case where the Plaintiff , Tina Disesso, appealed from a post-judgment order issued upon the Defendant, Nicholas Disesso's, cross motion to modify his alimony obligation and emancipate the ex-couple's son and daughter. The Family Court judge ordered that the parties' son be emancipated, modified the child support to reflect the son's emancipation, imputed income at the minimum wage to the Plaintiff and reduced the Defendant's alimony obligation. The parties in this case were married in 1982 and had two children, a son born in 1987 and a daughter born in 1990. They were divorced in 2004 and had a property settlement agreement incorporated into their Final Judgment of Divorce that addressed the issues of alimony, child support, and the emancipation of their children. The agreement provided for permanent alimony and child support. The Defendant agreed to pay $4,000 a month in alimony and $268 a week in child support. Due to their son's special needs, the property settlement agreement incorporated into the parties' divorce judgment included a special standard regarding their son's emancipation. The standard provided that the son would be emancipated "only when he [was] able to live independently and work full-time to support himself." In May of 2012, during court proceedings brought by the Defendant to enforce a court order to emancipate the son, the Family Court found that the parties' son was operating a business as of 2011. The court found that the son was "running a business, and he was capable at that point in time of moving beyond the sphere of influence of his parents." Pursuant to this finding, the court emancipated the son retroactively to be effective as of November 1, 2011. The Appellate Court reversed and vacated this provision of the order. According to the court, the standard for emancipation that the parties agreed to, which was focused on their son's capacity for independent living and self-support, was consistent with the overall legal standard for emancipation which states that emancipation occurs when: "the fundamental dependent relationship between parent and child is concluded, the parent relinquishes the right to custody and is relieved of the burden of support, the child is no longer entitled to support." Filippone v. Lee, 304 N.J. Super. 301, 308 (App. Div. 1997). The court holds that in this case the son's age and ability to operate a business for a time was "arguably adequate" to warrant further inquiry and that the terms of the agreement addressing the son's special needs and his continued receipt of social benefits called his capacity for independent living into question. The Appellate Court remanded the case back to the lower court to re-address the facts material to emancipation. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your divorce judgment or if you have questions regarding the legal standard for emancipation it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modifications, emancipation, divorce, alimony, child support, 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.

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.