New Jersey Divorce and Family Lawyer Blog
The first Tuesday of every November serves as Election Day in New Jersey and across the United States. Immigration, both legal and illegal, continues to be controversial issue in current elections. On Election Day Eve, November 2, 2015, the New Jersey Appellate Division published their Opinion in OYPC v. JCP, — N.J.Super. — (App. Div. 2015), addressing the issues of immigration and custody. In the case, an older sibling petitioned the court to gain custody of her eighteen year old brother. Her brother was born in Guatemala, where the father’s name was not listed on the boy’s birth certificate, nor was the father involved in the boy’s life. The boy’s biological mother (JCP) never disclosed to the child that he was his mother. Rather, after the boy was born, JCP turned the boy over to his 17 year old sister (OYPC) to be raised as her own child, and JCP pretended to be the boy’s grandmother. The sister (OYPC) cared for both the boy and her mother (JCP), and OYPC also supported the family. Continue reading ›
New Jersey Family Court Judge Expresses Methods for Use of Electronic Evidence Contained on Cell Phones or Electronic Devices at Trial
For those of you that have attended Mr. Yudes’ annual ICLE seminar: Family Law Update and/or those of you that have paid close attention to newly published trial court decisions over the past three (3) years will not be surprised to find that the Honorable Lawrence R. Jones, J.S.C., a Superior Court Judge in Ocean County, has issued many trial court level decisions that have become published. Beginning with Benjamin v. Benjamin, which was decided in October 2012 and was approved for publication in February 2013, Judge Jones has issued a total of nine (9) decisions published decisions. Continue reading ›
New Jersey Family Court Allows Child Support to be Awarded Retroactive to the Date the Complaint for Divorce is Filed
Generally, when a motion to modify a child support obligation is made New Jersey’s “anti-retroactivity statute” only allows a modification in child support retroactive to the date that the motion was filed. N.J.S.A. specifically states:
“No payment or installment of an order for child support, or those portions of an order which are allocated for child support established prior to or subsequent to the effective date of P.L.1993, c. 45 (C.2A:17-56.23a), shall be retroactively modified by the court except with respect to the period during which there is a pending application for modification, but only from the date the notice of motion was mailed either directly or through the appropriate agent. The written notice will state that a change of circumstances has occurred and a motion for modification of the order will be filed within 45 days. In the event a motion is not filed within the 45-day period, modification shall be permitted only from the date the motion is filed with the court.” (Emphasis added). Continue reading ›
Appellate Division Addresses Retroactivity of New Alimony Statute Relating to Cohabitation
Previously we have written about the 2014 modifications to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 which dramatically changed the law in New Jersey as it relates to alimony. As outlined in that blog, the statute not only eliminated permanent alimony as a judicial option but clarified the law as it related to the impact of: cohabitation, retirement and loss of employment on alimony. The effective date of that statute is September 10, 2014. The bar has been awaiting cases dealing with the new alimony statute’s impact on new matters as well as how it would apply to matters resolved prior to its effective date. Continue reading ›
AND MEDIATION FOR ALL (ALMOST)
Last week, we wrote a blog post discussing the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent enactment of Rule 5:1-5 which sets forth standards and procedures governing the arbitration of divorce matters. The Supreme Court codified recent case law which had addressed questions arising over the parties’ use of the arbitration process to resolve issues related to their divorce proceeding, rather than continuing to pursue litigation through the court system and having a judge decide the issues in their case. In so doing, the Supreme Court was furthering the policy that has evolved in recent years encouraging the use of complimentary or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings as a means to help parties settle cases and/or divert cases from a growingly overburdened judicial system. Continue reading ›
The New Jersey Supreme Court Enacts Rule 5:1-5 to Further Codify Procedures Regarding the Arbitration of Pre and Post-Judgment Divorce Matters
More and more litigants today are agreeing to arbitrate matters outside of the public sphere of the courthouse and hire a private arbitrator to resolve their dispute in lieu of a judge in the court doing so. In the context of a business or contract dispute, the aggrieved parties might be more inclined to consider having an arbitrator decide their case. Continue reading ›
What Does Visiting Pope Francis Think About Family Law Issues?
Recent matters in the news this month have had me thinking about the intersection of religion and law. Earlier this month, Rowan County Kentucky clerk, Kim Davis, was jailed for contempt because she refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples despite the June, 2015 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which decided that states cannot ban same sex couples from marrying. Ms. Davis, an elected official, indicated that she could not sign marriages licenses in which her name appeared without violating her conscience and her Christian religion. Continue reading ›
Supreme Court of New Jersey Adds New Rule of Evidence: Mental Health Service Provider-Patient Privilege
During a custody dispute over children, if the parties cannot reach an agreement between themselves as to the custody and parenting time arrangement that serves the best interest of the child(ren) at issue, the Court will then be called upon to make that determination for them. The Court is required to make findings as to , and will apply the 15 statutory factors of N.J.S.A. 2A:9:2-4, among which are factors that include the “fitness of the parents”, the “parents’ ability to agree, community and cooperate in matters relating to the child”, the “needs of the child”, and the “stability of the home environment offered”. Continue reading ›
Destruction of Jointly Owned Marital Property Constitutes “Criminal Mischief” Supporting a Finding of Domestic Violence
It is well known that when an unmarried individual destroys property that belongs to someone else that can be a predicate under New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA). However, the waters become muddy when a spouse destroys marital property as “property, both real and personal” is part of the marital estate. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. Therefore, marital property is considered to be jointly owned by spouses. Which begs the question: If a spouse destroys jointly owned property, is the spouse guilty of criminal mischief for destroying what is his/her own property? Continue reading ›
Family Court Considers Whether to Enforce Restraints on a Child’s Exposure to Parental Dating Relationships
Frequently, clients come to me complaining that their spouse or partner is exposing their children to dating relationships or conversely ask what should be their response to a spouses objection. Generally I advise that one should follow a common sense approach, meaning one should look at the effect on the children and not rush to judgment automatically, contrary to the position of one’s spouse. I think it is fair to say in general that children should not be exposed to serial partners who are all introduced as mom’s or dad’s new best friend. Continue reading ›