High Net-Worth Divorce Leads To Successive Post-Judgment Motions

In a high net-worth divorce, Robin Baskin, the defendant, filed a motion to enforce litigant's rights seeking child support and alimony arrears as well as medical expenses for the children. The parties entered into a negotiated property settlement agreement (PSA) at the time of their divorce which provided, among other relief, alimony to the defendant in the amount of $17,000 per month for 78 months and child support in the amount of $3,300 per month for the parties' 3 children until such time as the children were emancipated. The children often changed residence between the parties and 2 of the parties children had great difficulties in school, which the Plaintiff cited as being due to family conflict, and were enrolled in alternate educational settings at costs of up to $80,000 annually. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County ordered the plaintiff to satisfy all child support and alimony arrears as well as reimburse the defendant for the children's medical expenses but allowed the plaintiff a $20,000 credit for the plaintiff's expenses resulting from the children's difficult circumstances. The Honorable Thomas J. Critchley also awarded the defendant $12,000 in counsel fees associated with her motion. In Baskin v. Baskin, the NJ Appellate Division upheld the denial of the plaintiff's request for a retroactive modification in child support, which is barred by N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23(a), to the date that the children returned to his residence rather than the date of the filing of his cross-motion. Ohlhoff v. Ohlhoff, 246 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1991). The Appellate Division did determine that child support should be modified to reflect the change in custody wherein the plaintiff became the parent of primary residence and found the credit awarded by the motion judge to be unsupported by reasons as required under Heinl v. Heinl, 287 N.J. Super. 337 (App. Div. 1996). Without reasons set forth fully on the record, the Appellate Division has no basis on which to conduct a review. Finally, with regard to the defendant's counsel fees, N.J.C.R. 5:3-5(c) permits attorney fees in matters of child custody, support and motions to enforce litigant's rights. The motion judge determined that, as there were no substantial changes made in his decision, the plaintiff's motions were in bad faith but made no specific findings with regard to counsel fees. The N.J. Appellate Division found that the plaintiff was reasonable in seeking relief and vacated the counsel fee award to the defendant. The decisions made in divorce, by either the parties or the court in the event of trial, are long lasting and have significant consequences to both parties' and their children. When considering a modification, timing is crucial as you cannot obtain modification retroactively beyond the date of your application. If you have significant income or assets and are considering divorce or seeking a modification of your present child support, it is critical that you discuss your situation with an experienced divorce attorney. For more information about child support, custody, divorce, parenting time, visitation, alimony or other family law matters in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Child Support Arrears Effect Income Tax Deductions

Although child support arrears are do not result in a prohibition of a parent enjoying visitation or parenting time with their child, child support arrears can result in suspension of a parent's right to claim a child as a child support deduction. In Zeitlin v. Zeitlin, the New Jersey Family part refused to modify the property settlement agreement to the extent that each parent was entitled to claim one child as an exemption on their income tax returns. However, on appeal, the N.J. Appellate Division held that a parent's failure to pay child support breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing and could result in the suspension of that parent's right to claim a child as an income tax deduction. Based on the notion of good faith and fair dealing, the court suspended the father's right, under the property settlement agreement, to claim one of the children as a tax exemption. The decisions made in divorce, by either the parties or the court in the event of trial, are long lasting and have significant consequences to both parties' and their children. If you are considering divorce or seeking a modification of your present child support, it is critical that you discuss your situation with an experienced divorce attorney before taking action. For more information about child support, custody, divorce, parenting time, visitation, alimony or other family law matters in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Child Support Modification Denied

In Markey v. Melazzo, the Defendant appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that denied his Motion to terminate his child support obligation and force a recalculation of his arrearage. The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling of the Family Court. In 1995, the Plaintiff and Defendant had a son together but never married. In 2005, a Court Order directed the Defendant to pay $129 a week in child support. In 2012, the Defendant was injured at work and has since claimed that he is unable to work because he is disabled. Later that year, a hearing officer denied the Defendant's Motion for modification of support, without prejudice, because the Defendant failed to provide proof of his income or the validity of his disability. In 2013, the Defendant filed the application which was the subject of this appeal, wherein he sought the termination of his child support and the elimination of his arrears. The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff has not permitted him to visit with the child and has changed the child's last name without his consent. In 2013, the Family Court denied the Defendant's Motion because the Defendant failed to provide a valid basis for relief. The Defendant appealed. According to the Appellate Division, child support is necessary to ensure that parents provide for the basic needs of their children. Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 590, 660 A.2d 485 (1995). A party who seeks modification of his or her child support obligation has the burden of demonstrating a change in circumstances warranting such an adjustment. Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157, 416 A.2d 45 (1980). The decision must be made in accordance with the N.J. Child Support Guidelines when applicable. Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250, 266, 864 A.2d 1108 (2005); Terry v. Terry, 270 N.J. Super. 105, 121, 636 A.2d 579 (App. Div. 1994). In this case, the Defendant sought the termination of his child support obligation and the elimination of his arrears dating back to 2002 when the child's name was changed, arguing that the name change was a de facto termination of his parental rights, yet the Defendant cites no authority of his position. According to the Appellate Court, the Family Court correctly determined that the Defendant's parental rights were never terminated and thus found no basis for vacating the Defendant's arrears. With respect to the Defendant's claim of disability, he did not submit any medical information. Therefore, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. If you anticipate that it may be beneficial to you to seek a post-judgment modification of a Court Order regarding a child support obligation 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, divorce, 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 of an attorney.

Grandparent Visitation Denied Without Showing Of Harm To Grandchildren

In Loser v. Witt, the Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their Complaint seeking grandparent visitation. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Family Court. In 2005, the Defendants, Melissa Witt and Eric Loser were living together along with Melissa's son from a previous relationship, when Melissa gave birth to their son. The Plaintiffs in this case are Eric's parents. In 2007, Melissa and Eric split up which resulted in litigation with regard to child custody, upon which the relationship between Melissa and the Plaintiffs, Eric's parents, deteriorated. Eventually Melissa and Eric resolved their differences but the relationship between Melissa and the Plaintiffs never recovered. In 2013, Eric disallowed the Plaintiffs from having any contact with the children. Eric believed, at the time, that his father was harassing Melissa and attempting to undermine her relationships with the children. In August of that year, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Family Court seeking visitation with their grandchildren. The Plaintiffs requested a plenary hearing and the opportunity to conduct a psychological evaluation of the children. The Plaintiffs contended that they had a very close relationship with the children - seeing them two to three times a week and had taken them on annual vacations. They admitted though that they were never full time care-takers. After oral argument, the Family Court judge dismissed the Plaintiff's Complaint concluding that the Plaintiffs "failed to meet the required threshold showing of [particularized] harm to subject the parents and the children to further litigation." The Plaintiffs appealed. According to the Appellate Division, parents have a fundamental right to "make decisions regarding the care and custody of their children." Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84,88, 827 A.2d 203 (2003). Ordinarily, courts do not interfere with a fit parent's decision to prevent contact between his or her child and the child's grandparents. Rente v. Rente, 390 N.J. Super. 487, 493, 915 A.2d 1099 (App. Div. 2007). Grandparents can force "grandparent visitation over the wishes of a fit parent" if they can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that visitation is necessary to avoid harm to the child. Moriarty, supra, 177 N.J. at 115, 117. To persuade the court that a child will be harmed by the absence of visitation, grandparents may present either expert or factual evidence. First, grandparents must make a "clear and specific allegation of concrete harm to the children." Daniels v. Daniels, 381 N.J. Super. 286, 294, 885 A.2d 524 (App. Div. 2005). In this case, the Appellate Court found that the Plaintiffs have not alleged concrete facts demonstrating that the Defendant's parental decision to prohibit contact will cause significant harm to the children. Therefore, the decision of the Family Court was affirmed. Child custody and grandparent's rights cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a modification of your current child custody arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, parenting time, child support, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit the DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Emancipation Does Not Eliminate Child Support Arrearage

Berthoumieux-Egas v. Berthoumieux, is a post-judgment dissolution matter in which the Defendant, father, appealed from a 2013 Family Court Order that denied his Motion for reconsideration regarding the emancipation of the parties' daughter and subsequently his child support obligation. The Family Court judge stated in his statement of reasons for denying the Defendant's Motion that the Order from which the Defendant appealed was the result of the undisputed emancipation of the parties' only child. The Order was the result of the exchange of Motions in which the Defendant sought his daughter's emancipation and requested to pay $25 a week towards his support arrears. The Plaintiff sought an Order that directed the Defendant to pay to her $8,000 as reimbursement for payments she made for the child's college and medical expenses. The Family Court granted the Defendant's request to emancipate the child, granted the Plaintiff's request to increase the Defendant's arrears and denied the Defendant's request to maintain his current arrears payment of $25 a week. The amount of increase in the Defendant's arrears payments to $191 a week was equal to his total weekly support obligation for his daughter. The Defendant submitted a Motion for reconsideration which was denied. The Family Court stated that it denied his Motion because it failed to meet the standards for consideration as defined by Court Rule 4:49-2 because the Defendant failed to show where the court erred and failed to provide any case law or statute that was contrary to the court's decision. The Defendant appealed. According to the Appellate Division, it could not perform its appellate function because the Defendant failed to provide a complete appendix which should have included copies of the Motions he filed with the supporting financial documents. Lacking those documents, the court could not determine if the Family Court improperly denied the reconsideration Motion. The Defendant's failure to provide these documents breached his "oblig[ation] to provide the court with 'such other parts of the record . . . as are essential to the proper considerations of the issues.'" Soc'y Hill Condo. Ass'n v. Soc'y Hill Assocs., 347 N.J. Super. 163, 177, 789 A.2d 138 (App. Div. 2002); N.J. Court Rules 2:6-1(a)(1)([I]) and 2:6-3. Therefore, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Family Court. If you are considering action in the NJ Family Court, the process can be complicated. Often the results litigants seek are postponed or denied due to lack of knowledge regarding court procedure or filing requirements making it essential that you consider retaining a family law attorney to represent your interests. For more information about post-judgment modification, emancipation, divorce, 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 of an attorney.

Parenting Time Plan Upheld By NJ Appellate Division

In N.S. v. D.O., the Defendant appealed from a Court Order which set forth a parenting time schedule because he felt that the Order did not provide him with the "full measure of his parental rights" by denying him liberal and reasonable parenting time. In 2010, the Plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Defendant under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. At the same time she filed a Complaint for Divorce against him. The Family Court judge assigned to the case referred the matter to the Bergen Family Center (BFC) for the purpose of conducting a custody/parenting time evaluation. In 2011, the BFC issued a very detailed written report documenting its evaluation and recommendations. The evaluator interviewed the parties, the children, the grandparents, the Defendant's treating psychologist, the treating pediatrician of the children, a DYFS worker who investigated a prior claim that the Defendant made (after losing parental rights) that the parties' daughter was sexually abused by her maternal grandfather, and many others. The evaluator acknowledged that the case was "a highly charged situation for everyone involved," and although the Defendant had not had access to his children since the FRO was issued, the evaluator recommended that the prohibition against him having parenting time with his children should "be modified at this time," and that reunification with his children should proceed under the guidance of the son's therapist. Finally, it was recommended that after at least six (6) sessions without contradictions the Defendant should be permitted supervised visitation which should continue for at least six (6) months. After this, the Defendant could petition the court for the supervision to be lifted. The parties executed a Consent Order on May of 2011 that tracked the recommendations of the BFC evaluator. It was later ordered that both parties submit to the court proposed parenting time plans. Upon the submission of both parenting time plans, the judge observed that there was "not that much of a difference" between their proposed plans and described their argument regarding holidays as "minor." The judge then indicated that she would prepare an Order that blended their two proposals providing them with "something [they] both [could] live with . . . that allows both of [them] to continue to work together." Subsequently, the judge prepared a very detailed Order concerning custody and parenting time that provided that the Defendant receive unsupervised visitation on alternate weekends, without overnights, until the 2014 school year when the weekend visitations were to become overnights. The Defendant appealed arguing that the schedule was unreasonably restrictive without providing any reasons for being so. The Appellate Division disagreed. According to the Appellate Court, in reviewing the Order of the Family Court, it "defer[ed] to the factual findings of the trial court," N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104, 952 A.2d 436 (2008). In doing so it recognized the "family court's special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328, 343, 990 A.2d 1097 (2010); Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413, 713 A.2d 390 (1998). It is only when the Family Court's conclusions are ". . . so 'clearly mistaken' or 'wide of the mark'" that the Appellate Division will intervene and make its own findings. In this case, the court found that the Family Court judge held that the parenting plans submitted by the parties were not that different and the differences that did exist were minor. The judge's stated goal of blending the proposals to create an equitable Order that each party could live with was achieved and therefore there was no reason to disturb the Family Court's Order. Custody and Visitation are extremely sensitive issues wherein an appropriate balance between the needs of the child with the existing situation of each parent. If you believe that a modification to your custody or parenting time 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, parenting time, equitable distribution, divorce, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit the DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way is intended to replace the advice if an attorney.

Even If Mother Interferes With Visitation, Father Gets No Reduction In Child Care Costs

Goni v. Tchistiakova, is a case that came out of Sussex County, in which the Defendant appealed from a post-judgment Order denying her application to compel the Plaintiff to contribute to their son's after school care expenses and that before the Defendant could file another application the Plaintiff's parenting time had to be significantly expanded. The Appellate Division reversed the decision of the Family Court. The Defendant filed a summary action with the Family Court, pursuant to Rule 5:6-1, to modify an existing child support Order in the hopes of compelling the Plaintiff to contribute to their son's after school care expenses. The court instructed the parties to attempt to solve the issue themselves. At that time the court heard the Plaintiff's request for additional parenting time and noted that the Defendant should "expand" the Plaintiff's parenting time, as well as that of his extended family, before she should get any additional expenses from him. The Defendant appealed. The Appellate Court reversed the decision of the Family Court holding that the lower court failed to provide a reasonable basis for denying the Defendant's request. Unless there are circumstances that excuse a parent from paying child support, a parent must contribute to work-related day care expenses. See NJ Child Support Guidelines. In this case, there was no evidence presented indicating that the Plaintiff was relieved of his duty to contribute. Next, even if the Defendant interfered with the Plaintiff's parenting time, his obligation to pay support would not be relieved because a "parent's responsibility to support [his] child financially cannot be lessened by the other parent's interference 'with rights of custody or visitation granted by a court.'" Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 592 (1995); Ross v. McNasby, 259 N.J. Super 410, 414 (App. Div. 1992). Finally, there was no application submitted to the court requesting an expansion of the Plaintiff's parenting time. Beyond that, unless a grandparent or sibling has filed an application and a court has issued an Order directing visitation with them pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1, then family members are not entitled to visitation. If you are considering a post-judgment modification of your child custody or parenting time arrangement or financial obligations it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modification , divorce, alimony, child custody, parenting time, 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.

Extended Parenting Time, Child Custody And Name Change Award Appealed

In Ferriola v. Chiarulli, the Defendant appealed from a Family Court Order that expanded the Plaintiff's parenting time and restored the parties' child's name to that appearing on her birth certificate. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The parties in this case share a four (4) year old girl. They were never married and they do not get along with each other. During their lives, both have battled addictions to drugs or alcohol and their daughter tested positive for drugs when she was born in 2010. As a result, she suffered severe and lasting withdrawal symptoms which caused there to be a finding of abuse and neglect against the parents. In 2011, the Defendant was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the girl and the Plaintiff was allowed only weekly supervised visitation while she underwent drug treatment. The Plaintiff completed court ordered parenting classes and began drug treatment as recommended by the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCP&P) in 2011. After completing a one (1) year drug treatment program the Plaintiff was awarded ten (10) hours a week of unsupervised parenting time with her child with the plan to re-evaluate parenting time in the future. Six months later the judge found that the Plaintiff's parenting time visits were successful and she was still sober, therefore she expanded her parenting time to include overnight visits. The judge also granted the Plaintiff's request to change the child's name to add her last name as an additional middle name to allow the child to carry the Plaintiff's family name without hyphenating her surname. The Defendant appealed arguing that the court should not have expanded the Plaintiff's overnight parenting time or changed the child's name without a plenary hearing. The Appellate Court held that the Defendant's arguments were without merit pursuant to Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The Appellate Court believed that the Family Court judge, who had overseen the case for over three (3) years carefully explained her reasons for all of the relief that the Plaintiff was awarded. Most importantly, the judge based all of her decisions on the child's best interests. Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102, 111-12 (App. Div 2007). Therefore, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Family Court. Child custody and parenting time cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law as are the often included issues including changing a child's name. If you feel that it may be beneficial to you to submit an application to the court to change your child's name or modify your current child custody or parenting time arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney. For more information about name change, child custody, parenting time, non dissolution cases, 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.

Mediation Of Custody and Parenting Time Issues

In the recent Appellate Division case, D.A. v. R.C., the court remanded the parties to mediation to attempt to resolve issues regarding the child custody and parenting time arrangement with regard to their son because the Family Court failed to properly address the legal and factual issues of the case. The parties' son Jeremy was born in 1998. The parties, in 2002, executed a Consent Order for joint custody which specified that Jeremy would live with D.A. and enjoy liberal parenting time with R.C. In 2012, R.C. submitted a Motion to the court to alter the Consent Order to have Jeremy live with him because his relationship with D.A. had disintegrated. D.A. objected to the Motion arguing that the custodial arrangement was only intended to be temporary to allow her to graduate from the police academy. During three (3) hearings that were conducted on this issues the parties each presented completely opposing views with regard to their custody arrangement. D.A., the Plaintiff, argued that R.C., the Defendant's, home life was filled with domestic violence which endangered Jeremy and make R.C. unfit to be her son's residential parent. The Defendant argued that D.A.'s adversarial parenting style drove their son away from her so much that he did not want to live with her. The Appellate Division found that due to the level of informality with which the hearings were conducted the resolutions that were adjudicated with regard to the disputed issues were precluded. According to the record, the trial judge was not aware that due to the fact that Jeremy's parenting time and custody were genuine and substantial issues that were unresolved, he was obligated under Rule 5:8-1 to refer the case to mediation. Due to this oversight, the Appellate Division remanded the case to mediation so that the parties could attempt to resolve the issues that remained. Based upon the parties' history of antipathy towards each other and their prior unwillingness to attempt to reach a mutual compromise the Appellate Court directed that the Family Court closely oversee the mediation. Further, if mediation failed to resolve the parenting time and custody issues the Family Court judge was directed to conduct a hearing to solve the factual disputes and legal findings on the record as is required by N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(f) and N.J. Court Rule 1:7-4(a) by either interviewing Jeremy in camera or placing the reasons for not doing so on the record. Finally, the Family Court judge must consider the factors found in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c) to reach a decision because he previously failed to consider them. Child custody and parenting time cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a modification of your current child custody arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, parenting time, mediation, 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.

Father Obtains Permission To Relocate With Children

In the recent Appellate Division case out of Morris County, Valedofsky v. Valedofsky, the Defendant, Jennifer Valedofsky, appealed from a post-judgment 2013 Court Order that allowed the Plaintiff, David Valedofsky, to relocate with their children from New Jersey to Rhode Island. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Family Division. The parties in this case were married in 2000 and subsequently had two (2) children, born in 2004 and 2006 respectively. They obtained a divorce in Pennsylvania in 2010 and the Defendant was directed to be the custodial parent for the children. In 2011, the Plaintiff, who was living in New Jersey applied to the court to gain custody of his children. The Plaintiff was granted primary custody of the children. After this, the Defendant relocated to New Jersey to be closer to her family and her children. She then moved before the court in New Jersey for a 50/50 custody share. In 2012, the judge denied her Motion due to no change in circumstances. In 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Motion with the court to relocate with the children to Rhode Island because he received a promotion in his job that included a raise and expanded his opportunities to further advance within his company. Further, his entire extended family lived in Rhode Island. The Defendant opposed the Motion contesting that the Defendant's application for relocation was not made in good faith and cross moved for custody of the children. The Motion judge granted the Plaintiff's Motion to relocate after applying the factors found in Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001), and finding that the request was made in good faith that included benefits for the children. The Defendant appealed from this judgment. The Appellate Division held that when the physical custodial relationship among a set of parents is such that one parent serves as the primary caretaker and the other parent as secondary caretaker, then the custodial parent's request to relocate is governed by the two-part test found in the Baures case. Id. at 122. The test requires that removal be permitted where the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates the custodial parent has a good faith reason for the move and the move will not be inimical to the children's interests (the children will not suffer from the move). This standard ensures that the custodial parent has the right to seek happiness and fulfillment and guarantees regular communication and contact between the non-custodial parent and the child and incorporates a variation on a best interests analysis by requiring proof that a child will not suffer from the move. MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 191 N.J. 240, 257 (2007). In this case, the judge that ruled on the Plaintiff's Motion analyzed all applicable factors and found that the Plaintiff made a prima facie case that the move was in good faith and would not be inimical to the children. The Defendant did not provide the court with any proof that the move was not requested in good faith or that it would be harmful to the children. Therefore, the court affirmed the decision of the Family Division. Disputes regarding child relocation can be of the most important in family law because of the substantial impact that decisions regarding these issues will have upon the lives of the parties and their children. If you are involved in a child relocation dispute it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information on child relocation, custody and visitation, parenting time, divorce, 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.

Same-Sex Divorce Law Lags Behind Same-Sex Marriage Law in NJ

It has been over one year since same-sex marriage has become legal in New Jersey and since October 21, 2013 and the decision in Garden State Equality v. Dow, N.J. 216, 314 (2013) hundreds of homosexual couples from New Jersey and beyond have applied in this state for marriage licenses, but obtaining a same-sex divorce may prove to be a trickier ordeal. Twenty states in America still have legislation that prohibits homosexual couples from legally marrying each other. For many residents of these particular states, New Jersey has proven to be viable destination to travel to for the purposes of marrying. Many same-sex couples living in states that still ban gay and lesbian marriage routinely travel to other states to get married. The velocity with which same-sex marriage laws have been changing throughout the county have provided people in this predicament with many potential wedding destinations. The problem is, same-sex divorce laws have not adapted to accommodate this practice. It stands to reason that the majority of states that do not recognize gay or lesbian marriages also do not recognize same-sex divorce. Therefore, if a LGBT married couple desires to get a divorce there may be logistical obstacles that may impede the process. For instance, in New Jersey a gay or lesbian married couple who may live in another state but traveled to New Jersey to get married will most likely have difficulty obtaining a legal divorce in this state because of New Jersey's residency requirement. According to the laws of this state, either or both of the spouses in a legal marriage must be a bona fide resident of New Jersey and if a couple wants to obtain a divorce on any grounds other than adultery, this residence requirement must have been established for one full year before the divorce papers are filed. The status of this aspect of the law may make it difficult for out of state residents who marred in New Jersey to get a divorce if they did not relocate to the state following their marriage - which indicates that thousands of people throughout the country may be affected by this. If you are a gay or lesbian couple who plan on seeking a legal marriage or filing for a same-sex divorce or would like more information regarding same-sex divorce it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information about same-sex marriage, same-sex divorce, equitable distribution, alimony, custody and visitation, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and it is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Parenting Time Agreement Upheld On Appeal

n a recent NJ Appellate Division case, S.L.R. v. M.J.P., the Plaintiff-wife appealed from a 2013 Court Order that, in part, required her to honor the parenting time arrangement with her Defendant-husband regarding the parties' two youngest children and denying her request that the court interview the two children and award the Plaintiff sole legal custody over them. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married in 1989 and three children were born of their marriage. The parties decided to divorce in 2002 and their Final Judgment of Divorce incorporated a property settlement agreement (PSA). The terms of the PSA specified that the parties would share joint legal custody of the children with the Plaintiff acting as the parent of primary custody. Further, the agreement designated that the Defendant would have parenting time with the children on alternating weekends and one overnight during the week. In 2013, the parties' eldest daughter, Katherine, began living with the Defendant. In March of that year, the Plaintiff's attorney sent a letter to the Defendant stating that the children have decided that they will no longer attend the Defendant's parenting time at which time the attorney advised the Defendant to consider the letter as notice that his youngest two children, Kali and Emily, would not be going to his home in the foreseeable future. The Defendant filed a Motion seeking an Order naming him the parent of primary residence for Katherine and compelling the Plaintiff to honor their parenting time agreement with respect to the younger children. The Family Court granted the Defendant's request to be named Katherine's parent of primary residence, granted his request that the parenting time arrangement as it was designed in the parties' PSA be followed, and denied the Plaintiff's request that the youngest children be interviewed regarding the matter. The Plaintiff appealed from this decision. According to the Appellate Court, the Family Court failed to make any findings of fact to justify its conclusion, including whether a changed circumstance warranted a modification to the parenting time arrangement when it denied the Plaintiff's request to interview the children who were seventeen and thirteen years old. R. 1:7-4(a); Rolnick v. Rolnick, 290 N.J. Super. 35, 42 (App. Div. 1996). Further, the Family Court did not acknowledge the existence of conflicting certifications, ignored the evidence the parties presented on the issue of parenting time, failed to make findings of fact, and reached its decision by shifting the burden to the Defendant to resolve the matter. In addition, the Family Court also failed to engage any meaningful review of the terms of the PSA which should have included a best interests evaluation. N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(a); Palermo v. Palermo, 164 N.J. Super. 492 (App. Div. 1978). For all of these reasons, the Appellate Division remanded the case back to the Family Court to conduct a plenary hearing to decide the disputed issues of fact. Disputes over parenting time and child custody are among the most emotional and contested issues in family law. If you are involved in a child custody or parenting time dispute or if you are battling over provisions in your property settlement agreement it is of paramount importance that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information about parenting time, custody & visitation, post-judgment modification, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Sole Custody After Child Endangerment Allegations?

In the recent NJ Appellate Division case, Hernandez v. Fermin, the Plaintiff sought sole custody of the parties' daughter alleging violations of his rights following accusations by the Defendant that he endangered their daughter's safety. The Plaintiff appealed from a 2012 Family Court Order that upheld a previous parenting time and custody order. In this case, the Plaintiff and Defendant started dating around 2008, and although the parties never married, they had a daughter together who was born in 2009. One month after, Sara, their daughter, was born they dissolved their relationship and the Defendant assumed custody of her. In 2010, the Defendant formally filed a Complaint for custody of Sara and the Family Court granted her temporary custody and a Parenting Time Order. The court also granted the Defendant temporary legal and residential custody and assigned a parenting time schedule for the Plaintiff. Subsequently, the parties went to mediation where they agreed to joint legal custody and signed a Consent Order granting the Defendant residential custody of their daughter and continuing the existing parenting time schedule. In 2012, the Plaintiff filed another Motion with the court arguing that the Defendant engaged in multiple parenting time violations and seeking sole legal custody over Sara. The Plaintiff's concerns were based upon the safety of Sara, who had recently suffered second or third degree burns while in the Defendant's custody. The Plaintiff also asserted that when Sara was younger she noticed that she had an unexplained cut on her leg while in the Defendant's care and that the Defendant had failed to care for a dental cavity that Sara had. The Family Court judge denied the Motion, holding that in order to determine the issue of sole custody of a child, he would need to hear the testimony from professionals like psychologists or other doctors regarding either parents' fitness. The judge held that in order to modify a custody arrangement "you've got to prove a substantial change of circumstances. The fact that the [child] got injured is not in or itself grounds to take a child away . . ." Therefore, the Family Court found that the Plaintiff's arguments were insufficient to warrant a change in custody. The Plaintiff then appealed from this decision. The NJ Appellate Court held that the resolution of a request to change custody requires the court to consider the custodial parent's fitness and the presence of a changed circumstance. Sheehan v. Sheehan, 51 N.J. Super. 276, 295 (App. Div. 1958); N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. Z.P.R., 351 N.J. Super. 427, 434 (App. Div. 2002). Following these principals, the Appellate Court found no error in the Family Court's determinations and held that the Plaintiff's assertions were without merit and affirmed the decision of the lower court. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Child custody cases are of the most emotional and difficult cases in all of family law. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for to establish custody or for a post-judgment modification of your current child custody arrangement it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about child custody, post-judgment modification, parenting time, divorce, child support, 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 of an attorney.

Denial Of Grandparent's Petition For Visitation Reversed

In the recent New Jersey Appellate Division case, C.D.M. v. S.M.P., a grandparent visitation case, the Appellate Division reversed the decision of the Family Court which denied a grandparent's application for visitation because the lower court did not follow the appropriate procedures in denying the petition. In this case, the Plaintiff, C.D.M. is the maternal grandmother of a little girl born in May of 2012 and whom the court identifies as "Nancy." The Plaintiff's daughter died while giving birth to Nancy. The Defendant and Nancy's biological father, S.M.P. initially tried to reach a mutually acceptable visitation arrangement with C.D.M., but in the end he denied her requests to visit Nancy or to allow Nancy to have contact with her half brother, referred to as "Nathan." The Plaintiff has legal and physical custody of Nathan. In September of 2012, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint on behalf of herself and her grandson Nathan (then five years old), asking the court to order visitation with Nancy under N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1. S.M.P. responded to the Plaintiff's Complaint by filing a counterclaim seeking "sole custody," an accounting of any and all funds collected for Nancy's benefit upon her mother's death, and denying the Plaintiff's request for grandparent visitation. The Family Court judge stated that New Jersey's grandparent/sibling visitation statute "requires a very high showing . . . before a judge . . . who is a stranger to the child . . . can overrule a parental decision," and he was unsure if this case met that standard. The judge then asked the parties, with their attorneys to spend a few minutes to try to work something out. After a period of time, the Plaintiff's attorney reported that the parties were unable to reach a resolution. The judge emphasized that the "law presumes that a father, a mother knows what's best for a child and that . . . [he] shouldn't overrule that decision." The judge then denied Plaintiff's requested relief and dismissed her Complaint as a matter of law. The record reflects that the judge specifically declined to hear from the Defendant's attorney at the return date of the Order to Show Cause, citing that based upon what he had read in the parties' pleadings and certifications, the Plaintiff had not established a sufficient basis to overcome the Defendant's objections. Under Rule 2:5-1(b) the judge supplemented his analysis and findings once the Plaintiff appealed from his decision. According to the Appellate Division, according to R.K. v. D.L., 434 N.J. Super. 113, 137-40 (App. Div. 2014), it addressed the procedural and substantive approach the Family Part must use when dealing with grandparent visitation cases. These approaches are grounded in the concerns embedded in the State's Constitution as were expressed in the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Moriarty v. Brandt, 177 N.J. 84 (2003) and in the state statute N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1. The Appellate Court went on to hold that in every case in which visitation is denied, the grandparents bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that visitation is necessary to avoid harm to the child. The court found that in this case, the trial court did not properly consider all relevant factors when it dismissed the Plaintiff's Complaint as a matter of law and therefore reversed and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a de novo re-examination of the Plaintiff's Complaint consistent with the procedures and principles set forth in R.K. If you anticipate that you would like to petition the court to obtain grandparent visitation rights it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney who can evaluate your case and advise you on your rights and obligations. For more information about grandparent visitation rights, custody and visitation, parenting time, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Same-Sex Marriage: The Impact Of Windsor In America

The years 2013 and 2014 have ushered in great social and cultural change with regard to the status of same-sex marriage throughout America due in large part to the decision in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013). One year ago this week the United States Supreme Court decided the landmark Windsor case which struck down The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional and essentially held that gay and lesbian people in the United States should be offered the same rights and respect under the law that heterosexual people currently enjoy. This decision has had a profound impact on the status of marriage equality in America. DOMA was passed by Congress in 1996 and functioned to define marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman only - in the eyes of the federal government. After DOMA's passage, gay and lesbian married couples were officially denied all of the federal recognition and benefits that were afforded to straight couples who were married. When the Windsor case was filed in 2010, only five (5) states and Washington D.C. allowed same-sex marriage. When the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case, twelve (12) states allowed LGBT people to marry. Today, nineteen (19) states, as well as Washington D.C., recognize same-sex marriages along with the federal government. Currently, 44% of the population of the United States have the right to marry a same-sex partner if they choose to do so. This reflects a remarkably fast cultural shift across this nation - a shift that will have long lasting effects on the legal atmosphere for decades to come. At present, there are many other states' courts and legislatures that are deciding issues regarding marriage equality and there may be even more states that recognize same-sex marriage by the end of this year. The rolling trend toward marriage equality in America is undeniable. Therefore, gay and lesbian couples who are contemplating marriage in New Jersey or any other state that now recognizes marriage equality should educate themselves on their new rights and legal responsibilities, especially if they were previously joined in a civil union or domestic partnership. If you are a gay or lesbian couple who plan on seeking a legal marriage, filing for a same-sex divorce or would like more information regarding same-sex divorce it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information about same-sex marriage, same-sex divorce, same-sex relationship dissolution, equitable distribution, alimony, custody, visitation, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and it is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Same-Sex Marriages Are Flourishing In NJ- Are Divorces To Follow?

Currently, the statistics indicate that same-sex marriages are flourishing in New Jersey, does this mean that some of these couples will inevitably be heading for a divorce at some point? Matrimonial data and common sense seem to insinuate so. Same-sex marriage became legal in the state of New Jersey on October 21, 2013 following the decision of Garden State Equality v. Dow, N.J. 216, 314 (2013). Since that date, over 2,955 homosexual couples were legally wed in the Garden State. During this same period of time 43,619 heterosexual couples were married which means that for this period of time one out of every fifteen (15) marriages that were conducted in New Jersey was a same-sex marriage. These numbers roughly translate to about 500 homosexual marriages a month or 150 every weekend. Professionals have stated that these number comport with what estimates were projected to be and the data is on par with what happened in other states as gay and lesbian couples gained the right to marry. Currently approximately 4% of the 8.8 million New Jersey residence identify themselves as being homosexual. Researchers predict that the number of same-sex marriages will continue to steadily increase as the summer months commence and as autumn approaches - as these two seasons are the most popular for weddings. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center reflects that about 71,165 gay and lesbian couples have been legally married in the United states with at least 12,285 being married in the state of New York. In New Jersey, Monmouth County has seen the most same-sex weddings since October 2013 with 324; Camden County had 298; and Essex County had 258. As gay and lesbian couples continue to exercise their right to marry they will experience many family law issues that perhaps they did not encounter before such as step-parent adoption of children, tax benefit issues, or estate planning considerations. The unfortunate consequence of many legal marriages -whether they be heterosexual marriages or homosexual marriages - is the possibility of a relationship dissolution and divorce. As the number of same-sex marriages increase it is inevitable that a significant percentage of these marriages may end in a divorce. In the event of a divorce, gay and lesbian couples need to be prepared to deal with the issues that heterosexual divorcing couples have experienced for many years such as - equitable distribution of assets, alimony, child support, child custody and visitation, just to name a few. If you are a gay or lesbian couple who plan on seeking a legal marriage or filing for a same-sex divorce or would like more information regarding same-sex divorce it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information about same-sex marriage, same-sex divorce, same-sex relationship dissolution, equitable distribution, alimony, custody and visitation, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and it is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Battle Over Grandparent Visitation Rights

In the recent NJ Appellate Division case, Major v. Maguire, grandparent visitation rights were sought pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1, but the case was dismissed by the Family Court because the Plaintiff's failed to make a prima facie case. The Plaintiffs, Anthony and Suzanne Major are the paternal grandparents of a 6 year old girl who was referred to as "Jane" for the purposes of the court's opinion to protect her privacy. The Defendant, Julie Di Liberto is Jane's biological mother and unfortunately, Jane's father died two months before the Plaintiff's filed their complaint seeking visitation with their grandchild under a New Jersey statute, N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1. The Family Court dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint without conducting an evidentiary hearing or allowing the parties to engage in discovery. In addition, the court did not hold a case management conference or otherwise make any effort to indentify the issues in the case or attempt any mediation or settlement offers. In the appeal, the Plaintiff's argued that the Family Court erred in dismissing their complaint because they believed that they established a prima facie case to obtain the relief they were seeking as required by N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1 and Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84 (2003). Further, the Plaintiff claimed that the court abused its discretion in not allowing discovery or testimony on the issue. The Defendant argued that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint because the Plaintiff's failed to overcome her valid objections to visitation being that she is Jane's mother. Also, Defendant argued that the court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 5:5-4(a) in denying discovery or conducting a case management conference because the nature of the action required an expedited resolution. The Appellate Court remanded the case back to the Family Court to adjudicate the grandparent visitation issue under the procedural guidelines held in R.K. v. D.L., 434 N.J. Super. 113, 137-40 (App. Div. 2014). The Appellate Division directed that the lower court apply the statutory standards that were established in N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1 and the procedural and substantive approach that the Family Court must use in adjudicating grandparent visitation complaints, as this approach is grounded in the constitutional concerns expressed in the Moriarty decision and in N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1. According to the statute, the court must consider the following factors in making its decision to award visitation to a grandparent: • The relationship between the child and the grandparent seeking visitation rights • The amount of time since the child had contact with the grandparent • The relationship between each of the child's parents or the person with whom the child is living and the grandparent • The effect that such visitation will have on the relationship between the child and the child's parents or the person with whom the child is living • The good faith of the grandparent who is seeking visitation • If the parents are divorced or separated, the parenting time arrangement that exists between the child and his or her parents • Any history of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or neglect by the applicant • Any additional factor relevant to the best interest of the child If you anticipate that you would like to petition the court to obtain grandparent's visitation rights it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney who can evaluate your case and advise you on your rights and obligations. For more information about grandparent visitation rights, custody and visitation, parenting time, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

No Vacating A Child Custody Agreement Based on Party's Mistake

In a recent, Morris County New Jersey case, Alexin v. Raiter, the Plaintiff, Alexander Alexin and the Defendant, Irena Raiter, established a consent agreement to provide solutions to child custody issues in their relationship dissolution and the Appellate Division ruled that the Plaintiff could not vacate the agreement after it was signed when he claimed that he thought it was temporary and could be changed. The Plaintiff and Defendant had been dating when they discovered that the Defendant was pregnant. In 2010, a son was born to the couple but their relationship ended soon thereafter. In October of 2012, the Defendant filed a domestic violence complaint against the Plaintiff and was awarded a temporary restraining order. The restraining order granted the Defendant temporary custody of the parties' son and provided no parenting time for the Plaintiff. The parties then filed criminal complaints against each other. In late October 2012, the parties and their attorneys negotiated a civil consent agreement and the Plaintiff and his attorney made handwritten changes to the agreement at that time. The agreement indicated that the parties, through their attorneys, had resolved their issues in consideration of the promises that were made in the agreement. On the issue of child custody, the agreement specified that that Defendant shall have full physical custody of the parties' son and the Plaintiff shall have parenting time on Sundays from 11:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Barely three months after the agreement was signed by the parties and their attorneys, the Plaintiff filed another complaint with the Family Court requesting joint legal and physical custody of the parties' child, arguing that he did not need to show a change in circumstances because he did not enter into the agreement voluntarily. In February 2013, the Family Court conducted a hearing at which the judge issued a written opinion denying the Plaintiff's request to vacate the agreement because the Plaintiff was represented by counsel, had be questioned under oath, and affirmed his understanding of the agreement and his willingness to sign it. The Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Appellate Court and the Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. According to the Appellate Division, although the Plaintiff offered two certifications to support his motion to vacate the agreement, his arguments do not raise a genuine, material issue of fact given the explicit terms of the agreement. The Plaintiff contended that he signed the agreement believing that the terms were temporary and could be changed, and that he only had 10-15 minutes to review the agreement with his attorney. The Appellate Court reasoned that settlement agreements are contracts and therefore "should be enforced according to the intent of the parties." J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J. 305, 326 (2013). A contracting party to an agreement is "bound by the apparent intention he or she outwardly manifests to the other party. It is immaterial that he or she has a different, secret intention from that outwardly manifested." Brawer v. Brawer, 329 N.J. Super. 213, 283 (App. Div. 2000). Disputes regarding child custody can be of the most important and emotional in family law. If you are involved in a child custody or child support dispute it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information on custody, parenting time, post judgment modification, child support, divorce, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit Darlingfirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Party's Successive Post-Judgment Motions To Change Divorce Agreement Are Denied

In a recent New Jersey case, Dunbar v. Woods, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement ("PSA") and a custody and parenting time agreement when they divorced in 2010, and since that time the Plaintiff (husband) has made multiple, successive post-judgment motions to modify the terms of the agreement. All of the Plaintiff's motions to change the terms of the PSA have been denied by the court because they require a showing of a change in circumstances that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate. The Plaintiff appealed from the last Family Court order denying his request for a modification. The parties in his case were married in 2008, one day after executing a prenuptial agreement. The Plaintiff filed for a divorce in 2009 upon moving from New Jersey to Louisiana. The Defendant gave birth to the couple's twin children in 2009. In 2010, the the parties entered into the original PSA that is at issue in this case. At that time they were represented by legal counsel and the Plaintiff was unemployed. In Plaintiff's numerous post-judgment motions to significantly modify the agreement, he has requested multiple forms of relief. He has asserted that the PSA was the product of fraud and deception because the Defendant overstated her child care expenses in her case information statement (CIS). He sought to have the PSA vacated and his child support obligation reduced. The Defendant submitted cross motions indicating the Plaintiff had violated litigant's rights for not abiding by the terms of the PSA and seeking court orders denying his motions to modify the agreement. In the final order, for which the Defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, the court order denied all of the Plaintiff's requests and awarded the Defendant counsel fees in the amount of $2,100. In a statement attached to the final order the Judge specified that in order to modify the terms of the PSA the Plaintiff would have to show "a substantial change in circumstances . . . that renders the agreement no longer fair or equitable to enforce." Further, the judge specified that claims for relief requesting modification of child support under Court Rule 5:5-4 require a copy of both prior case information statements (CIS) and updated versions of the document reflecting current tax returns and other financial statements to support any claim that there is a substantial change in circumstances. In this case, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any of these documents. Finally, the court opined that the Plaintiff should be aware of the consequences under Court Rule 1:4-8 of filing multiple frivolous law suits. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision and order and noted that the Plaintiff's argument lacked any merit. If you anticipate that you may want to petition the court for a post-judgment modification of your property settlement agreement, divorce judgment, or child support obligation it is imperative that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about post-judgment modifications, divorce, prenuptial agreements, property settlement agreements, visitation & custody, 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.

Mentally Ill Mother Did Not Neglect Children In DYFS Case According to Appellate Court

In New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. C.F., the Appellate Court reversed the lower Family Court's finding that a mother, who has a chronic mental illness, abused or neglected her children. In April of 2012, a New Jersey Family Court held in a Title 9 complaint citing that C.F. had abused and neglected her two children. The case originated in 2011 when DYFS received a referral from the local police department citing that C.F.'s behavior was out of control as she was "throwing things, breaking things, screaming, ranting and raving." The police took C.F. to a local hospital where she was admitted into the psychiatric ward. She was thereafter referred for outpatient treatment. At the time, C.F. reported to a DFYS caseworker that she was hearing voices. As part of the DYFS investigation, a court appointed psychiatrist evaluated C.F. and diagnosed her with "bipolar disorder or possibly an agitated depression with psychosis." The psychiatrist noted that he thought that C.F. would be noncompliant with treatment based upon her history of noncompliance with treatment and her lack of understanding regarding her mental illness. Throughout her life, C.F., was hospitalized for psychiatric reasons at least five times beginning in 1994. She has been prescribed multiple medications for to treat her illnesses. In 2012, the Family Court determined that DYFS satisfied its burden by a preponderance of the evidence that C.F. neglected her children because of her chronic mental illness, her lack of insight into her illness, her refusal to take her medication regularly, her history of noncompliance with treatment, the necessity of police intervention into her family, and her numerous hospitalizations for mental illness. C.F. appealed this decision arguing that DYFS failed to prove that she neglected her children by a preponderance of the evidence because she did not act willfully or wantonly to put her children at risk. In its decision, the Appellate Court found that the narrow issue in the case was whether or not the facts in the record demonstrated that C.F.'s mental illness caused her to fail to exercise a minimum degree of care by recklessly creating a harm or the substantial risk of harm for her children under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b). The Court reversed the Family Court's finding that C.F. abused or neglected her children by holding that the record simply did not show that C.F. ever harmed or threatened to harm the children and that her history of mental illness did not demonstrate a substantial risk that she may harm her children. In its opinion, the Court noted that C.F. had the benefit of living with the children's father and her parents who were all aware of her mental health issues and could intervene to ensure the children were not in danger. In reversing the lower court's decision the Appellate Court ordered that C.F.'s name be removed from the Central Child Abuse Registry. Child neglect and abuse are very serious issues. A court finding of abuse and neglect can have an extremely negative effect on a person's life including the ability to obtain certain jobs and being restricted from places where children frequent. If DYFS has become involved with your family or you expect that DYFS will become involved with your family it is extremely important that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before moving forward. For more information about DYFS, custody & visitation, abuse and neglect, 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.