Articles Tagged with procedure

In the third and final blog post of this series, I will conclude my summary and discussion of the current 2018 Rule Amendments which have a direct or indirect impact upon Family Part practice in some fashion.

In this blog post, I will discuss a new New Jersey court rule which was adopted, Rule 4:86-7A, which addresses the financial maintenance of incapacitated adults who had been subject to prior Family Part support orders. The purpose of this rule was to give further effect to the terms of N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.67, et seq. which went into effect in February of 2017. Commonly referred to as the “emancipation” statute, its focus was actually the modification of current law relating to the duration and termination of child support obligations. Under this law, the obligation to pay child support would terminate by “operation of law” and without order by the court on a date that a child marries, dies, enters the military service, or reaches 19 years of age, unless (1) another age for the termination of child support is specified in a court order, but in no event beyond the date the child reaches 23 years of age, or (2) upon written request seeking the continuation of child support beyond the age of 19 for a child (a) who is still enrolled in high school or other secondary education program, (b) was a student in a post-secondary educational program and enrolled for what the school considers to be full-time attendance during part of at least five (5) calendar months of the year, or (c) has a physical or mental disability as determined by the federal or state governmental agency existing prior to the child reaching age 19 and requiring continued child support. Absent this, a parent could only seek to extend child support beyond the age of 19 by motion (due to exceptional circumstances as may be approved by the court); however, the statute also provided that it was not intended to prevent a child who is beyond 23 years of age and/or his parent from seeking a court order requiring the payment of other forms of financial maintenance or reimbursement from a parent as authorized by law to the extent same was not payable or enforceable “child support” as defined in N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.52, or prevent the court upon application due to exceptional circumstance including but not limited to a mental or physical disability, from converting a child support obligation to another form of financial maintenance for a child who had reached the age of 23.

The purpose of Rule 4:86-7A was to set forth the process and procedure to be filed for an application for conversion of a child support obligation for an alleged or adjudicated incapacitated person who has reached the age of 23 to another form of financial maintenance pursuant to the aforementioned statute. First, the Rule distinguishes between whether there has or has not been an adjudication of incapacity of the person for whom financial maintenance is being sought. If there has not already been an adjudication of incapacity, the plaintiff filing a complaint for adjudication of incapacity and the appointment of a guardian pursuant to Rule 4:86-2 may request such conversion in a separate count of the complaint. If there has already been an adjudication of incapacity, a guardian or custodial parent of that adjudicated incapacitated person may request such conversion by filing a motion on notice to the parent responsible for paying child support and any interested parties setting forth the basis for relief requested pursuant to Rule 4:86-7. In either event, the application shall set forth the exceptional circumstances pursuant to which such conversion is requested and shall annex thereto copies of any Chancery Division, Family Part orders relating to to the child support obligation, as well as a financial maintenance statement in such form as may be promulgated by the Administrative Director of the Courts.

e3bc10d77963468f2705f7119c049b73-300x199On September 20, 2017 the New Jersey Appellate Division approved a domestic violence case for publication the matter of L.C. v. M.A.J. (A4933-15T2), in which the Appellate Division addressed the use of pre-trial in limine motions, which are pretrial motions commonly used to request the court to make legal determinations about evidence before trial, to seek an eve of trial dismissal of a litigant’s pleadings. Continue reading ›

When people ask me what I do for a living, I usually tell them I am a “divorce” lawyer.  While much of this firm’s practice is devoted to representing clients either getting divorced, handling issues incident to a divorce, or addressing disputes which may arise post-divorce (i.e. modification, enforcement of obligations and the like), over the years this firm has often been called upon to handle a growing number of disputes between non-married parties.  Among these claims arising from “family-type” relationships are those involving child custody and parenting time, property rights, child support and “palimony”. Hence, it is more accurate to described myself as a “family law” attorney as our firm’s website so references.   Continue reading ›

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 ›

The Appellate Division recently handed down a clear and unambiguous message to triall courts and litigators alike regarding custody disputes and how they should be handled procedurally, regardless of whether the case is pre- or post-judgment.  The case, entitled D.A. v. R.C., involved the biological parents of a fourteen (14) year old boy each seeking to be designated as the parent of primary residence approximately ten (10) years after entering into a consent order resolving all issues of custody between them.  Continue reading ›

Prolific jurist, Honorable Lawrence R. Jones, J.S.C. in the family part in Ocean County, New Jersey, issued another published decision in the matter of J.C. v. M.C., decided on November 6, 2014.  This time, Judge Jones addressed the obligation of a plaintiff seeking a divorce to make a “diligent inquiry” as to the defendant’s whereabouts in order to serve a complaint for divorce when there is an active domestic violence restraining order against the plaintiff. Judge Jones’ decision gave priority to the right of a domestic violence victim to confidentiality of his or her location. Continue reading ›