Oral Palimony Agreements Enforceable If Made Before 2010

Last week, in the case of Maeker v. Ross, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that any oral agreements or promises to provide lifetime financial support to a non-married long term paramour prior to the year 2010 may give rise to an action for palimony. In 2010, the New Jersey legislature changed the law to amend the statute of frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), which prohibited the enforcement of oral palimony agreements. The law directs that "a promise by one party to a non-marital personal relationship to provide support or other consideration for the other party, either during the course of such relationship or after its termination" must be in writing, signed by the parties and with the advice of independent counsel. In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey had to render a decision as to whether or not the statue applies retroactively to palimony agreements made before the statute was amended. In Maeker, William Ross moved to rely on the language of N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) to dismiss Beverly Maeker's action to compel the enforcement of an oral palimony agreement between the parties. The parties' relationship lasted for thirteen (13) years and although they never married, they lived together for the vast majority of that time. During the duration of their relationship, Ross paid for all of Maeker's living expenses and made many promises that he would continue to take care of her. Based upon these promises, Maeker left her 20-year career in architectural glass. In 2011, Ross dissolved the parties' relationship and ceased his financial support of Maeker. Subsequently, Maeker filed a Complaint to enforce the parties' oral palimony agreement. Ross argued that because the agreement was never reduced to writing or signed by the parties, the statute of frauds prevented the agreement from being enforceable in court. The trial court denied Ross's motion to dismiss, but the Appellate Division reversed the decision of the lower court holding that the statute of frauds prevented Maeker's claim from being successful. This month, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the 2010 amendment to the statute of frauds was not designed to make oral palimony agreements created before 2010 unenforceable because the state legislature understands that the court system does not retroactively apply statutes and because there was no discernible legislative intent that the amendment was to be applied retroactively, therefore the Court declined to apply the statute in this case. Written agreements are an important way to protect your security and assets in the event that a relationship dissolves. Due to the potentially complex nature of such agreements, if you would like to enforce or establish a palimony agreement to protect your rights it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information about palimony agreements, prenuptial agreements, divorce, alimony, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Do Palimony Agreements Need To Be Written To Be Enforceable?

The Essex County Superior Court in, Joiner v. Orman, recently ruled on the issue of whether or not palimony agreements need to be in writing to be enforceable. In 2010, an amendment was made to the Statute of Frauds, which from then forth required that palimony agreements be made in writing and with the advice of legal counsel. In Joiner v. Orman, the defendant, Roscoe Orman, best known as the character "Gordon" for decades on the timeless children's television program, "Sesame Street," claimed that because his palimony agreement with the plaintiff was not placed in writing and was made outside the independent advice of counsel it was unenforceable. Mr. Orman and Ms. Joiner separated in 2010 and he has since married another woman. Ms. Joiner is now facing eviction from the home that the couple shared in Montclair and she claims that Mr. Orman made her verbal promises throughout their nearly 40 year relationship, a duration of time that she neglected her own professional goals so that Mr. Orman could pursue his career in television,regarding how she would be cared for in the event that their relationship ever ended. The Honorable Ned Rosenberg, J.S.C., ruled that Mr. Orman must continue to honor his palimony obligations even though the unmarried couple did not memorialize their agreement. Judge Rosenberg noted that Ms. Joiner "held up her end of the bargain . . . and the defendant does not even deny [the] agreement and even acknowledged the obligation by deeds and words." Mr. Orman's attorneys have stated that they intend to appeal Judge Rosenberg's decision because it contradicts the 2010 amendment to the state law requiring that palimony agreements be placed in writing and that the parties have independent advice of counsel when doing so. It is believed that Judge Rosenberg's ruling is the first instance of a state judge recognizing such an exception to the 2010 amendment. Unlike married couples, unmarried couples, even those who co-habitate on a long-term basis, do not have any right to support or obligation to make payment under the laws of NJ. Palimony agreements are an important way to protect your partner, your security and your assets in the event that a non-marital relationship dissolves or one member of the couple becomes incapacitated and that person's family chooses to discontinue support for the other against the wishes of the incapacitated person. Due to the potentially complex nature of such agreements, it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney in drafting and reviewing this agreement which will protect your assets and rights for years to come. If you are contemplating moving in with your significant other, or have been living with them for years without marrying, you should act to protect your future by entering into a palimony agreement with them. For more information about palimony agreements, prenuptial agreements, divorce, alimony, 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.

Prenuptial Agreement Reform in New Jersey

There have been recent reforms to the laws governing prenuptial agreements in New Jersey. The purpose of a prenuptial agreement is to legally memorialize the parties' intentions and rights regarding all or certain aspects of the marriage or civil union before either takes place in an attempt to avoid litigation should the marriage or civil union dissolve. In most states throughout this country, prenuptial agreements are strictly enforced provided that procedural and disclosure requirements are followed. In New Jersey, courts will neglect to enforce prenuptial agreements if the aforementioned procedural safeguards are not followed, just like in most other states. However, New Jersey courts provide parties with an additional means to avoid the enforcement of such agreements. The courts will not enforce prenuptial agreements that are considered to be unconscionable, both when the agreements are initially executed and also at the time that the parties want them to be enforced - typically at the time of a divorce or dissolution. The affect that this has on the validity of a "prenup" can be profound. The language in the law that allows for a party to avoid the enforcement of the terms of an agreement due to unconscionability essentially provides a party with an avenue to allow the terms of the agreement to be litigated in the courts, which is contrary to the entire purpose of the prenuptial agreement. If a party desires to prevent the enforcement of the terms of the agreement at the time of dissolution, he or she only has to claim that the agreement is or was unconscionable and the court may delay the enforcement of the agreement until the disputed terms are litigated. As of June 27, 2013, the New Jersey Legislature amended R.S.37:2-38, the law that governs prenuptial agreements, to remove the language that provides parties with the ability to claim unconscionability at the time of enforcement. Therefore, as long as the agreement was not unconscionable at the time of its execution, parties were provided with full disclosure of information, and all other procedural safeguards were followed at the time of execution - the courts should strictly enforce the agreement upon dissolution. Ultimately, the removal of this language in the law functions to strengthen the enforceability of pre-marital and pre-civil union agreements. This amendment will govern all prenuptial agreements executed on or after the effective date of the amendment. If you are entering into a second marriage and want to protect your children, you have a high net worth, are seeking to protect a business interest or have any other reason to protect your assets when entering into a marriage it is critical that you consult an attorney experienced in prenuptial agreements. For more information regarding pre-nups, alimony, palimony, child support, equitable distribution or other family law issues in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

New Jersey Palimony Agreements Must Be In Writing

According to a recent New Jersey Appellate Division decision, palimony agreements must be memorialized in writing if they are to be legally enforceable and the law requiring such is to be retroactively applied. The term "palimony" refers to the support that two unmarried people, who have lived together, promise to pay to each other upon the dissolution of their relationship. The status and availability of palimony throughout the United States varies dramatically from state to state. Some states will enforce palimony agreements other states will not. Further, of the states that do recognize the validity of palimony agreements, the rules that govern their enforcement are not uniformly applied across the states. Traditionally, in New Jersey palimony agreements could be either oral or written agreements to be legally enforceable. The 1979 case, Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, was the foundational precedent for these cases and had remained good law for decades. In 2010, the New Jersey legislature passed a law, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5, effectively amending the Statute of Frauds, which then mandated that palimony agreements be memorialized in writing. This shift in the law may have been caused by a shift in social culture. Over the last two decades, more and more couples have engaged in long term relationships that do not result in a marriage or civil union. Since the relationship dynamics have changed so much in our society, it may have proven difficult for a court to enforce an oral agreement for relationship configurations that appeared to be ever-changing. Therefore, it seemed natural for the law to mandate that palimony agreements be written as a means to minimize confusion and ambiguity over relationship statuses. On February 4, 2013, the Appellate Division rendered a decision in Maeker v. Ross that considered the issue of whether N.J.S.A. 25:1-5 could be applied to palimony agreements that were instituted before 2010. In Maeker, the litigants were engaged in a 10-year long relationship, in which the male partner supported the female. Their relationship ended in 2011 and Ms. Maeker sued Mr. Ross for palimony. The couple did not have a written agreement. N.J.S.A. 25:1-5, was codified in 2010 and required that palimony agreements be in writing in order to be enforceable. The trial court found that based upon the length of the relationship, the lawsuit could proceed. The Appellate Court disagreed and reversed the prior court's opinion, essentially holding that all palimony agreements must be in writing and that the law should be applied retroactively. The decision has been appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court. For more information about palimony, divorce, civil union dissolution, alimony, child support, custody 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.

Palimony Claims Under NJ Laws

Palimony is not determined by when the contract is made but rather when the claim is made. If you think you or someone you love is cared for under a palimony agreement, you should be aware of changes that have taken place in the law and how they affect any agreement you may have. In 2010, the law regarding palimony agreements changed to require a written agreement entered into with the assistance of counsel. Since that time, many individuals have attempted to enforce palimony agreements which came into existence prior to the effective date of the new requirements. In Maeker v. Ross, the NJ Appellate Division held that the palimony claim does not arise until the breach of the agreement or death of the promissor, it is the date on which the claim to enforce the agreement is filed which controls the validity of the agreement. In Maeker v. Ross, Maeker did not work during the parties 13 year relationship. Ross supported her, paid for her son's college education, kept her in a luxurious lifestyle by typical standards and allegedly promised her lifetime support. Maeker had power of attorney over Ross' affairs and both executrix and primary beneficiary under his will. Due to the timing of the parties' breakup, on or about July 2011, the Somerset County Superior Court Judge Thomas Miller decided the Legislature did not express a clear intent to terminate actions which arose in close proximity to the law's effective date. Miller reasoned that inequity would arise by the release of someone making a promise 30 years ago by a statutory change today. The Appellate Division disagreed with Miller, holding a palimony agreement to be a contract like any other and subject to interpretation on the same basis. The Appellate Division found Ross and Maeker had an 18 month period from the enactment of the law to the filing of the complaint to enter into an agreement enforceable under the new statute. Although Ross and Maeker did originally have the intent to enter into such an agreement based on their actions and lifestyle, at the time the requirements changed for a valid palimony agreement changed, the parties' relationship had clearly deteriorated to the point it is probable Ross would not have entered into an agreement under the terms of the current law. If you think you or someone you love is cared for under a palimony agreement or entering into a palimony agreement, you should consult experienced legal counsel to insure your rights are protected. For more information regarding palimony, alimony, child support or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

NJ Same-Sex Marriage After Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA

The Supreme Court of The United States of America has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples who are married, in civil unions or other forms of union recognized under state law. The President 's administration stated it would quickly move to ensure same-sex married couples get the same federal tax and other benefits that heterosexual married couples receive. It is still up to the individual states to determine if they will recognize same-sex marriage. In New Jersey, the Supreme Court of New Jersey in its opinion in the 2006 case of Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006) held that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the same rights and benefits that heterosexual couples are given and held that the State could either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or enact a parallel statutory structure by another name in which same-sex couples would enjoy the same rights and benefits and bear the burdens and obligations of civil marriage in the State of New Jersey. The State Legislature established civil unions which do not qualify as "marriage" under the Federal Laws. Governor Christie has made it clear he does not support same-sex marriage. He vetoed a marriage bill passed by the legislature and voiced his disfavor with the Supreme Court's ruling striking down DOMA. He stated he wants the issue left up to the voters of New Jersey. Many in the State Legislature are trying to override Governor Christie's veto. If you are in a same-sex relationship in New Jersey and are interested in protecting or providing for your partner you should consult with an experienced family attorney. For more information about same-sex relationships, palimony agreements, cohabitation agreements, child custody, visitation, dissolution, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.