April 30, 2011

Paying Parent Has Right to School Records

Issues of privacy between parents and children can be very sensitive matters, with parents trying to balance their desire to support and protect with their children’s rights. Sometimes, however, a parent’s right to know can supersede the child’s privacy rights, as illustrated in the recent New Jersey case of Van Brunt v. Van Brunt.

The question in that case came down to whether children can both evoke their right to privacy under the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and claim entitlement to child support and financial assistance with their education. The court’s answer essentially was no.

The Van Brunts are a divorced couple who have joint legal custody of their two children. Under terms of their divorce, Mrs. Van Brunt was named primary residential parent and Mr. Van Brunt was ordered to pay child support, including contributions towards the children’s college expenses, until they become emancipated. The children would not be considered emancipated, according to the agreement, as long as they were enrolled in a full-time, four-year academic college program. (1)

At one point Mr. Van Brunt filed a motion seeking disclosure of his oldest child’s college records verifying her status as a full-time student. The court ordered release of this information and Mrs. Van Brunt initially failed to comply. Mr. Van Brunt then filed a motion for emancipation of his daughter, who was over 21 at the time. (2)

Mrs. Van Brunt eventually released some of the requested information but claimed that obtaining it was a violation of her daughter’s privacy rights under FERPA. The court disagreed saying, in essence, that if Mrs. Van Brunt did not have enough influence over her daughter to comply with the court order, then perhaps the daughter could no longer be considered unemancipated. (2)

FERPA prohibits colleges from divulging student information to third parties without the student’s written permission, but the court pointed out that such permission is not required when the information is needed to comply with a court order. (3)

According to the court, college students cannot have it both ways. In other words, the Van
Brunt’s daughter cannot keep her college records private from dad and still demand his financial support of that education.

The court further ruled that while the daughter would not be ordered to release her college records, failure to do so could lead to her emancipation. (1)

(1) http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202490662205&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
(2) http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202490678333
(3) http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

Bookmark and Share

April 17, 2011

Should Your Right to an Attorney Pertain to Child Support Cases?

Anyone who has ever watched a TV police drama is familiar with the line “. . . You have the right to speak to an attorney . . . If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.” (1) The question currently being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court is whether this right, which usually pertains to defendants in criminal cases, should be extended to include defendants in civil cases, specifically child support matters. (2)

The particular case under consideration involves a South Carolina father who has been held in civil contempt on several occasions and sentenced to as much as one year in jail at a time for failure to make his child support payments. (2)

Since 1963, the Supreme Court has held that people facing incarceration must have the opportunity to be represented by an attorney. People who cannot afford an attorney are provided with one. That ruling, however, was tied to the Sixth Amendment and only related to criminal proceedings, not civil matters. Still, a number of states, including New Jersey, make provisions for impoverished people in child support cases. (2)

Back in 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that all parents facing possible jail time as a result of violating court-ordered child support payments must be told that they have a right to legal counsel. Low-income parents must be informed that they have the right to have a lawyer appointed to them. If not so informed, the court cannot use the threat of jail against the defendant in those proceedings. (3)

The question before the U.S. Supreme Court now is whether this right should be extended nationwide. One of the problems, the Court noted, is where to draw the line. If this right was granted to defendants in child support cases, what would prevent it from being applied to other civil cases, including alimony, or even immigration and extradition issues. It was also noted that in some states, like New Jersey, the expense for providing legal counsel for indigent defendants may become cost-prohibitive, preventing those states from pursuing collections of child support diligently. (2)

It could be sometime this summer before the Supreme Court issues a ruling on this matter. (4)

(1) http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/us/24scotus.html
(3) http://www.lsnjlaw.org/english/family/childsuport/csenforcement/
(4) http://www.npr.org/2011/03/23/134736601/supreme-court-weighs-rights-of-deadbeat-parents


Bookmark and Share

April 2, 2011

Does New Jersey Need to Update Its Definition of “Mother”?

Imagine availing yourself of all the advancements in reproductive technology in order to conceive the child you thought you may never have just to have the courts say you haven’t earned the title of “Mom.” That is exactly what has happened to a Union County couple now fighting to update State law.

The couple conceived a child through in vitro fertilization, a process whereby the egg is fertilized outside the womb and then implanted into the mother. In this case the egg came from a donor and a surrogate carried the baby to term. As a result, the intended mother has no genetic or biological relationship to the child. (1)

Before the child’s birth 19 months ago, a Superior Court judge issued a pre-birth order permitting the wife’s name to be listed on the birth certificate as the child’s mother. The Bureau of Vital Statistics challenged this ruling and an Appeals Court sided with the Bureau, ruling that the woman would have to adopt the child in order to be recognized as his mother by State courts. (2)

Under State law, husbands are presumed to be fathers whether or not their sperm was used in conception. Wives, however, are not presumed to be mothers unless their eggs or bodies were used for the conception and/or pregnancy. (3)

New Jersey’s current parentage definitions stem from the highly publicized 1986 Baby M case. That child was conceived through artificial insemination, whereby sperm is placed inside the woman and her own egg is fertilized in her own body. Although a surrogate was also involved in that case, the courts recognized the husband as the child’s legal father. State law has not been updated since then, although reproductive technology has been. (2)

Participants in the current case point out some legal ramifications that could arise when the “mother” is not recognized by the courts. For one thing, if something were to happen to the mother before the adoption was finalized, the child would be denied benefits he may otherwise have been entitled to, including insurance and Social Security. If named a beneficiary in his mother’s will, he could also be subject to inheritance taxes which are waived for legally recognized children. (1)

While the couple is seeking to have State laws revised to keep up with changes in reproductive technology, the Appellate Court contends this is a question for the State Legislature, not the courts. (2)

(1) http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/courts/Appeals_court_rules_NJ_woman_must_adopt_baby_born_through_artificial_insemination_of_a_surrogate.html
(2) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/nj_womans_case_exposes_laws_in.html
(3) http://womenofgrace.com/breaking_news/?p=7469

Bookmark and Share