March 19, 2011

She Gets the House, He Gets the Cars, But Who Gets Rover?

Deciding the fate of the family pet in a divorce is a little more complicated than deciding who gets Great Aunt Sara’s heirloom trinkets, yet most states consider pets as mere property. New Jersey, however, is one state that recognizes the uniqueness of pets and the sentimental value we attach to them. In fact, New Jersey courts will enforce sharing agreements entered into by divorcing couples.

This opinion dates back to the March 2009 case of Houseman v. Dare. As an engaged couple, Ms. Houseman and Mr. Dare shared ownership of a pug named Dexter. When the engagement ended, they reached an agreement on sharing their dog. This worked well until Ms. Houseman went on vacation, leaving Dexter with Mr. Dare. Upon her return, she learned Mr. Dare reneged on the agreement wanting Dexter to himself. Ms. Houseman filed suit. (1)

The lower court's initial decision was to not enforce the sharing agreement. A two-year battle ensued and a New Jersey Appeals Court reversed the lower court’s decision to not enforce the sharing agreement, awarding monetary compensation instead. The Appeals Court ruled that a judge can, in fact, enforce sharing agreements or, if necessary, determine who gets the family pet based on sentimental value.

While New Jersey courts stop short of using the term “custody” in reference to the human/pet association, they do recognize companion animals as unique and irreplaceable. (2) Like all living things, pets have characteristics and traits that make them distinct from each other. A new dog doesn’t necessarily “replace” the one lost in a divorce.

Court support of shared care arrangements can become even more important when dealing with animals with longer life expectancies, such as horses or exotic birds. These animals can live a couple of decades or more and a lot can happen in that time – people have a change of heart, they relocate; any number of factors can affect the original agreement, making court support of that agreement all the more important.

What happens if you can’t reach an agreement? New Jersey courts can decide the placement of he family pet after considering a number of factors: Who had the primary responsibility for the daily care of the animal? Who paid the vet bills? And, if children are involved, who had primary custody? Often, children and animals form the strongest bonds and courts will weigh this when deciding the animal’s placement. (3)

(1) http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428985476&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
(2) http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34841043/ns/today-today_pets_and_animals/
(3) http://www.legallanguage.com/legal-articles/pet-custody/

Bookmark and Share

March 6, 2011

N.J. Court Denies Visitation Rights to Brazilian Grandparents of Tinton Falls Boy

Divorce not only separates the nuclear family – father, mother, child – but it can have ramifications for the extended family as well. The grandparent/grandchild relationship is one that can often suffer from the dissolution of a marriage.

Since the 1970s, a number of states have passed laws recognizing grandparents’ rights in maintaining relationships with their grandchildren. The Grandparents’ Visitation Statute of New Jersey grants grandparents the right to seek visitation with their grandchildren in the State. (1)

In reviewing the grandparents’ application for visitation, courts take several things into consideration, including the grandparents’ relationship with that grandchild as well as with their relationship with their own child. Indications of abuse of any kind – emotional, sexual, physical – or indications of neglect will be weighed heavily by the courts when ruling on the visitation application.(2) Just how heavily such actions are weighed was evident in a recent Monmouth County case.

Last month a Superior Court judge denied a visitation request by the grandparents of a Tinton Falls boy.(3) The child, Sean Goldman, had been the object of an international custody battle that lasted five years. In 2004 Sean was taken by his mother, the late Bruna Bianchi, to her homeland of Brazil for what was to be a short visit. While there, however, Ms. Bianchi filed for divorce from her husband, David Goldman. In 2007 Ms. Bianchi remarried but died shortly thereafter. Her new husband filed in Brazil for custody of Sean, claiming that the child’s biological father had abandoned him. Meanwhile in the U.S., Mr. Goldman had been launching his own legal actions to bring his son back home.

The custody battle between Mr. Goldman and the boy’s stepfather and maternal grandparents won international attention. It took five years and help from some high-ranking U.S. officials before Mr. Goldman was allowed to bring his son back home in 2009.

Since then, Mr. Goldman had agreed to allow his ex-wife’s parents to visit their grandson under certain conditions, one being they drop all legal action in Brazil to regain custody of Sean. That legal action, along with the couple’s past actions to keep Sean from his biological father, weighed heavily in the Superior Court judge’s recent decision regarding the denial of grandparents' visitation.(3) While New Jersey does recognize the rights of grandparents, the statute allows for visitation only when it is in the best interest of the child.(1)

(1) http://www.livestrong.com/article/206424-grandparents-rights-in-new-jersey/

(2) http://www.ehow.com/list_6656730_grandparent_s-rights-new-jersey.html

(3) http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/grandparents-of-sean-goldman-denied-visitation

Bookmark and Share