Verified Complaint for Name Change of Minor Plaintiff

In the recent case of Fleury v. Fleury, the Appellate Division in its unpublished opinion, held that the permitting the mother to change the last-name of a minor child on a verbal request was improper because New Jersey Court Rule 4:72-1 requires that a verified complaint be filed for an application to change a surname. The Appellate Court reversed the part of the Trial Court's Order which denied Defendant-Appellant's motion to change the son's surname back to his prior last name. Defendant claimed that under Rule 4:72-1 Plaintiff was supposed to file a verified complaint for the request to change their son's surname which would state the grounds for the request and that under Rule 4:72-3 Plaintiff would be required to publicize a notification of the request in local newspapers and serve the notice on Defendant at his last known address by certified and regular mail which Plaintiff failed to do. The Trial Court held Defendant-Appellant's motion was denied because it was not filed within the time requirement for a motion of reconsideration which is within twenty days after service of the judgment or order. The Defendant then moved for reconsideration. The Appellate Court held that it was not determined that Defendant's motion request was actually past the time allowed. Further New Jersey Court Rule 4:50, which allows for relief from an order or judgment where it is no longer equitable, could have been applied. It would be applicable because Defendant did not specifically label his motion as being a motion for reconsideration. The Court, as a court of justice, could then right the inequity of not providing Defendant with proper notice of Plaintiff's request to change the child's last name and of not giving him the chance to contest Plaintiff's request. The Appellate Court stated the Trial Court might ultimately find allowing the minor child's surname change is in his best interests but Defendant must be given notice of the application for the name change and he has the right to the opportunity to challenge the Plaintiff's application. If you want to have your child's last name changed, want to have your last name changed or if you have been served papers requesting a minor child's last name be changed then you should consult with an experienced family law attorney to protect your rights. For more information about surname change applications, child support, child custody, divorce 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.

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.

NJ Senate Passes Mandatory 25 years to Life for Aggravated Sexual Assault of Child Under 13

On October 4, 2012 the New Jersey Senate passed "The Jessica Lunsford Act". This Act modifies N.J.S. 2C:14-2 to require a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for the aggravated sexual assault of a child under 13. The intent of the sponsors of the bill is to punish those committing the "repugnant" crime of sexual assault of a young child by denying such "monsters" the opportunity to re-offend. The Legislation was passed 7 years after the brutal rape and murder of 9 year old Jessica Lunsford of Florida. The bill was sponsored by Senators Steve Oroho (R-Sussex), Tom Kean, Jr. (R-Union) of and Diane Allen (R-Burlington). The "Jessica Lunsford Act" is now before Governor Chris Christie for final approval. 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 criminal law matters, including municipal court 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.

Possible Elimination of Time Limits on Sexual Abuse Suits in NJ

A bill pending in NJ, A-2405, would eliminate the statute of limitations on sexual-abuse lawsuits. The current statutes call for the filing of a lawsuit within 2 years of the abuse or, if the victim is a minor, 2 years after the victim reaches the age of majority. If passed, this bill would open the possibility of bringing their abusers to justice for many for whom this possibility has long ago ended. This expansion of opportunity could serve as an additional deterrent to those who would choose to commit such crimes believing they would escape prosecution under the current statute. For those who have committed such offenses over 2 years ago and believed they had escaped prosecution, this may re-open the possibility of prosecution. Although the bill has not yet passed, it is likely this will cover past crimes as well as crimes not yet committed. 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 charged with a crime, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on Megan's law, sex-crimes, endangering the welfare of a minor or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

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.