New Jersey Family Law Blog

When a couple divorces, it is easy to understand why some may want to erase all evidence of the failed relationship. That’s one reason behind women reclaiming their maiden names as part of their divorce settlements. But when children are involved, such decisions are not so easy. If, after reading the following, you need assistance with custody-related issues, contact the family law attorneys at The Rotolo Law Firm in Lebanon, N.J.

The New Jersey Appellate Court recently reversed a ruling by a Burlington County Superior Court judge granting a mother permission to change her children’s surname following her divorce from their father. While the couple shares legal custody of their two children, the mother is the parent of primary residence. (1)

The couple divorced in 2010, ending an 11-year marriage. Shortly thereafter, the mother changed the children’s surname to a hyphenated version of her and her ex-husband’s last names without consulting the children’s father. The father filed with the court to have his children’s name changed back. The mother countered with her own petition to change the children’s name to her own. (1)

The procedure for changing the name of a child varies according to the state in which you live. (2) In New Jersey, the procedure for a name change is basically the same for adults and children. A petition must be filed with the court requesting the change and giving a reason for the change. Additional documentation and a hearing may be requested if necessary. Courts primarily are concerned that the change is not being done in an effort to avoid consequences of any legal action pending or for fraudulent purposes. (3)

In the case of a child’s name change, New Jersey requires both parents be involved. If only one parent files for the change, the other parent must be given the opportunity to object if he or she thinks the change would not be in the best interest of the child. (3)

When the above-mentioned case originally was heard, the judge based his ruling on the fact that the mother was the parent of primary residence which, he said, allowed for a presumption in her favor. The Appellate Court, however, said the judge was mistaken because the law upon which the presumption was based did not apply since the couple had been married at the time the children were born. Instead, the Appellate judges ruled, the best-interest test needed to be applied. This test takes into consideration several factors including how long the children had used their surname, how the children identified as a part of a family unit, and any discomfort or embarrassment the children may experience as a result of the name change. (1)

The presumption in favor of a parent of primary residence is mostly used in instances of children born out of wedlock. Even then, though, the Court noted, most states are steering away from this so it does not become an issue in divorce negotiations. It could also be considered discriminatory since parents of primary residence are primarily mothers. (1)

The above-described case illustrates how even relatively simple issues can have complications. If you or someone you know needs assistance with divorce or custody issues, contact the family law attorneys at The Rotolo Law Firm located in Lebanon, N.J., which is in Hunterdon County, New Jersey.

(1) http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202539705405&slreturn=1
(2) http://www.essortment.com/change-minor-childs-last-name-24588.html
(3) http://www.lsnjlaw.org/english/courts/formslawsuits/changename/changenamenj/

In a complicated case involving same-sex unions and surrogacy, a Hudson County judge recently put controversy aside and decided custody of twin girls based on their best interest. All custody cases carry their own complications. If, after reading the following, you have questions regarding custody issues in Hunterdon County, contact the family lawyers at The Rotolo Law Firm in Lebanon, NJ.

This particular custody case involves Donald Robinson Hollingsworth, Sean Hollingsworth and Donald’s sister, Angelia Robinson. Donald and Sean, partners who were married in California, currently reside in Jersey City. The men, wanting a family, entered into a surrogacy agreement with Donald’s sister, under which she agreed to carry a child – or twins, as it turned out – for the couple. The twin girls were conceived through in vitro fertilization with a donor embryo fertilized by Sean. (1)

Following a complicated birth, the men assumed custody of the twin girls, allowing for visitation with Ms. Robinson. In time, however, the relationship between brother and sister deteriorated, eventually winding up in a lawsuit. In 2009 a judge declared Ms. Robinson the legal mother of the girls even though she had no genetic ties to them. (2)

Disagreements between the men and Ms. Robinson heightened. They failed to agree on child-rearing basics such as schooling, religious beliefs, the girls’ biracial heritage (their biological father was the child of a biracial couple) and the issues of surrogacy and same-sex lifestyles. These major differences of opinion led the Hudson County Superior Court judge to determine that a joint custody arrangement would not work in this situation and instead based his decision on who would provide the best care for the girls. (1)

Sean, who worked part-time from home, was able to devote ample time to raising the girls. Donald ran a successful business. The couple owned homes in Jersey City and Asbury Park. Ms. Robinson lived with her mother in a rental apartment. While the girls were in her care, Ms. Robinson’s mother would watch them while she worked. Both women had expressed anti-gay and anti-surrogacy sentiments. (2)

In making his ruling, the judge expressed concern that the women’s viewpoints would eventually be shared with the girls with damaging effects. However, he recognized Ms. Robinson’s place as legal mother and, while granting full custody to the girls’ biological father, he preserved Ms. Robinson’s visitation rights. (2)

Neither same-sex marriages nor surrogacy contracts are recognized in New Jersey. While the men were married in California, they are considered to be in a civil union in New Jersey. The surrogacy contract entered into by Ms. Robinson and her brother could not be enforced because in New Jersey, as in Michigan, such contracts are considered to be against public policy and void. (3)

Custody issues are rarely black and white. More often there are many gray areas to take into consideration. If you or someone you know is involved in a custody issue in Hunterdon County, consider seeking the advice of the family law attorneys at The Rotolo Law Firm located in Lebanon, NJ, which is approximately ten miles from the county seat in Flemington.

(1) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/nj_gay_couple_fight_for_custod.html

(2) http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202535807445

(3) http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/surrogacy-contract-lawyers.html

Custody is defined as having the legal responsibility to care for and/or make decisions on behalf of a child under 18. (1) Most consider it a parental right, but there are times when the custody of a child can be threatened and the advice of counsel such as the family lawyers at The Rotolo Law Firm may be warranted.

Various factors can threaten custodial rights. You can be engaged in a custodial battle with an ex-spouse or you can lose custody to authorities as a result of abuse or neglect allegations. Often in divorce, agreements can be reached whereby parents have shared custody or at least visitation rights. Fighting to regain custody from child welfare authorities can be a different story. One Holland Township couple has found themselves engaged in such a battle for the past two years.

The couple, Deborah and Heath Campbell, lost custody of their three children in 2009 and just this week appeared in court once again – this time to fight for custody of their infant son. (2)

The Campbells first made headlines in 2008 when a request for a name on a birthday cake brought them to the attention of New Jersey’s Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). The couple had given their three older children names inspired by Nazis – Adolf Hitler Campbell, JoceyLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell. When they asked a supermarket employee to put Adolf Hitler, their son’s name on the birthday cake, the employee refused. Child welfare authorities somehow learned of the incident and began investigating the couple. The investigation led DYFS to remove the children from the couple’s custody, claiming there was evidence of past violence in the household and that the children were in danger of harm. (3)

Just last week, Mrs. Campbell gave birth to another son, whom the couple named Hons. Only hours after the child’s birth, reports stated, child welfare authorities took charge of the child and denied the couple contact with him. (2)

The couple went to court in Flemington this past Monday in an effort to regain custody of the baby, claiming authorities took the infant without a court order. Officials from DYFS have not commented publicly on the matter, but the judge hearing the case denied the couple’s request for custody. The couple’s other three children remain in foster care. (2)

Custody matters can be complicated and agonizing. If you are involved with custody issues in Hunterdon County or a surrounding county, contact The Rotolo Law Firm in Lebanon, NJ.

(1) http://www.womenslaw.org/laws_state_type.php?statelaw_name=Custody&state_code=GE

(2) http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/22/8952917-parents-of-adolf-hitler-campbell-lose-custody-of-newborn-hons

(3) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/nj_officials_take_custody_of_b.html

Sometimes things stand in the way of parents’ ability to raise their children – financial distress, illness, substance abuse - to name a few. When this happens, custody can be turned over to someone else: a grandparent, another relative or any trusted adult that has lived with the child. These people are known as “psychological” parents or de facto parents. If, after reading the following, you need a Hunterdon County lawyer that can assist you with a similar situation regarding parental rights, contact The Rotolo Law Firm, located in Lebanon, NJ, which is in close proximity to Clinton, NJ and Flemington, NJ.

By definition, a psychological parent is an adult with whom a child has bonded regardless of any legal, biological or adoptive relationship. (1) However, although custody of a child can be transferred, parental autonomy cannot, according to a ruling recently upheld by the New Jersey Appellate Division. (2)

Parental autonomy is a fundamental right of natural parents. It allows parents to make all decisions with regard to raising their child without fear of governmental interference as long as those decisions pose no threat to the child’s or the public’s order, safety and welfare. (3)

The court’s ruling came in connection with the case of Tortorice v. Vanartsdalen, involving a grandmother, Lynne Vanartsdalen, who was granted custody of her six-year-old grandson by the child’s natural mother, her daughter. The child basically had lived with Ms. Vanartsdalen all his life since both of his parents reportedly had a problem with substance abuse. In this arrangement, Ms. Vanartsdalen was considered a third-party guardian or psychological parent. (2)

As guardian, Ms. Vanartsdalen honored court-ordered visitation by the child’s natural father and maternal grandfather and step-grandmother, as well as the child’s paternal grandparents. It was when the paternal grandparents sought additional visitation privileges that Ms. Vanartsdalen objected, claiming the additional visitation would undermine her standing as the child’s custodial parent. She argued that Mr. and Mrs. Tortorice would need to prove that denying increased visitation would result in “identifiable harm” to the child. (2)

The court noted that Ms. Vanartsdalen did indeed meet all the criteria of a psychological parent – she was granted custody by her daughter; the child had lived with her most of his life; she assumed parental responsibility; and a bond had been formed between her and her grandson. However, the court ruled, because Ms. Vanartsdalen was not the child’s legal parent – a status reserved for natural or adoptive parents -- the “identifiable harm” standard did not apply. According to the court, while custody can be transferred, parental rights, or autonomy, cannot. (2)

If you or someone you know needs the assistance of an attorney for a child custody or parental rights issue in the State of New Jersey - specifically in Hunterdon County or the surrounding area, please contact the family law attorneys at The Rotolo Law Firm.

(1) http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/psychological-parent/295/1.html

(2) http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202517737205

(3) http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/parental-autonomy-doctrine/

A New Jersey statute designed to protect the rights of non-custodial parents and their children and maintain their relationship may have unfairly affected the rights of custodial parents, but case law is changing to address this inequity.

This situation came to light recently in the case of Morgan v. Morgan, a New Jersey couple who divorced in 2005. As part of their divorce settlement, the couple was granted joint legal custody of their two daughters, with the mother being the residential parent and the father having custody every other weekend, and one evening, and one overnight per week. He was also granted two weeks vacation time with the girls each year. (1)

When circumstances in the mother’s life changed and she contemplated relocating with her daughters to her home state of Massachusetts, the father filed a motion to re-determine custody. The mother filed a cross-motion requesting permission to relocate. These motions were filed in November 2005, at which time the trial judge denied the custody motion. A hearing on the relocation issue was held in 2007. This, too, was denied by the judge, who stated the mother’s reasons for relocating were not “valid” and the father’s relationship with his daughters could not be sustained under a new visitation schedule. (1)

Last year, the State Appellate Division reversed the lower court ruling and granted the relocation motion. That decision was upheld by the State Supreme Court just this month. (2)

In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the State statute regulating the custodial parent’s right to relocate children out of state has the effect of holding the custodial parent hostage while allowing complete freedom of movement to the non-custodial parent. The 2001 case of Baures v. Lewis addressed this inequity and changed the way courts decide relocation motions. From that case came a two-part test, known as the “Baures test,” courts now consider when deciding relocation motions: the parent requesting the move must prove “good faith” reasons for the move and also must show the child will not suffer as a result. That case also determined that a simple change in parenting time is not a good enough reason to deny a motion to move. (3)

Custody issues are complicated matters in which New Jersey courts try to protect the rights and meet needs of all parties involved.

(1) http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/index.jsp

(2) http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions.supreme.A110MorganvMorgain.pdf

(3) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1245062.html

When actress Halle Berry and Gabriel Aubry called it quits last April, reports claimed the split was amicable. The couple was even seen enjoying outings together with their young daughter. Now, however, the two are involved in a bitter custody battle. With each flinging accusations aimed at proving the other unfit, these celebrities prove just how contentious the legal battle can become when custody is involved. (1)

There may have been a time when custody was almost always granted to the mother unless she was proven to be emotionally, physically, or mentally unfit. But that was a time of traditional roles, when mothers were the primary caregivers and fathers the primary breadwinners. Today’s familial roles are not so clearly defined. Courts can no longer depend on traditional definitions of “mother” and “father” when deciding custody matters. So what do the courts look for?

New Jersey recognizes the custodial rights of both parents, but also considers the child’s best interest. Courts must determine if both parents can, and are willing to, meet the basic needs of their children, which vary with age. Some issues the courts consider include any domestic violence history; the parents’ fitness; their work responsibilities; their ability to cooperate and communicate regarding their children; and their willingness to allow each other to fulfill their parental responsibilities. (2)

There are two forms of custody acknowledged by State law: legal custody, which pertains to the right to make decisions for the children, and physical custody, or where the children will live. Two forms of legal custody are recognized in New Jersey. Joint legal custody, which is preferred in this State, gives both parents equal say in decisions relating to the children. Sole legal custody gives that right to one parent and is usually awarded only if the other parent is proven unfit to make decisions. (3)

Physical custody has three forms: sole, shared and split. In sole physical custody, the children share a primary residence with one parent, while the other is granted visitation. In shared custody, children spend no more than five, nor less than two, days a week with each parent. Split custody allows one child to primarily live with one parent, while another child lives with the other. (3)

Custody issues, whether parents were legally married or not, can be complicated and are court-enforced to protect both children and the rights of parents.

(1) http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2011/01/31/2011-01-31_halle_berry_ready_to_go_to_court_to_fight_for_custody_of_daughter_nahla_with_ex_.html

(2) http://www.childcustodycoach.com/new-jersey/

(3) http://www.ehow.com/facts_6067662_child-custody-laws-new-jersey.html

Child custody issues are difficult enough to resolve, but when parents abduct their children to foreign countries, the matters become even more complicated. Child abductions to Japan by parents or other family members prove to be among the most complicated to resolve.

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abductions promotes returning abducted children to the country they originally came from, but even with this treaty, resolution of these cases is difficult. (1)

A prime example is the case of Tinton Falls resident David Goldman and his son, Sean. Sean was taken by his mother to Brazil, her home country. While there, she filed for divorce and kept Sean with her. She subsequently died but Sean remained in the custody of his stepfather. Brazil is one of the countries that is party to the Hague Convention and still the legal battle to get Sean back to the U.S. took five years. (2)

Japan remains the only major country that has not signed The Hague Convention treaty. Just recently, the U.S. House of Representatives voted by an overwhelming majority to approve a resolution sponsored by Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) to put pressure on Japan to cooperate with international parental child abductions. (3) Smith was instrumental in helping Goldman retrieve his son from Brazil.

There are currently 95 child abduction cases involving American children taken by a parent or family member to Japan. These cases involve a total 136 children, of which 17 are the offspring of U.S. military personnel. (2)

Jade and Michael Elias are one example. Formerly of Rutherford, NJ, the toddlers were taken in 2008 at the ages of 2 and 1, by their mother, who fled to Japan against court orders which restricted their travel. Their father, Iraq War veteran Sgt. Michael Elias has not seen his children since and Japan has done little to help. (2)

The new bill urges Japan to let all parents involved in these cases see their children and to end these wrongful abduction cases immediately. Recent news reports from Japan indicate that the country is considering signing the treaty, but first wants to resolve its own laws in light of a recent change in the political structure of that country. (3)

(1) http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Jul/110545.html
(2) http://chrissmith.house.gov/News/DocumentPrint.aspx?DocumentID=209361
(3) http://bignews.biz/?id=924049&keys=Congressman-Chris-Smith-ChildAbductions

With everything reaching a global level these days, child custody battles are no exception. Parental child abduction is a growing international problem, often the result of a failed marriage that ends with one parent taking the children to a different country. The problem affects parents in many countries.

The case of Alejandro Mendoza is one such international custody battle. Alejandro Mendoza suspects his five-year-old son and three-year-old daughter may now be in Korea, but he is not sure. Violinist Mendoza teaches during the day and performs at night in the Lion King orchestra on Broadway. Mendoza once played a French violin made in 1902 but had to sell it for something he loves even more -- his children.

Continue reading "Mendoza - An International Custody Battle" »

Court Enunciates New Test for Tolling Child Sex Abuse Statute of Limitations
By Michael Booth
New Jersey Law Journal
June 11, 2009

The state Supreme Court on Thursday set out a two-stage analysis that trial judges must conduct to decide whether and for how long the two-year statute of limitations in child sexual abuse suits can be tolled.

The formula, which includes objective and subjective elements, will determine whether a Morris County man can pursue a suit, filed in 2004, alleging that his stepfather sexually assaulted him multiple times from 1987 and 1990, when he was between ages 10 to 12.

Superior Judge David Rand dismissed the suit as time-barred, but the Appellate Division reversed, saying the plaintiff did not appreciate that the abuse caused his emotional injuries until undergoing psychotherapy in 2002 and thus that the complaint was filed within two years of accrual of the cause of action.

In Thursday's ruling, R L. v. Voytac, A-61-08, Justice John Wallace Jr. said both lower courts erred. Rand did not conduct a thorough enough inquiry into when the plaintiff should have known that the root of his problems lay with the alleged sexual abuse, which the stepfather, Kenneth Voytac, denies.

And the Appellate Division mistakenly conflated two provisions in the Child Sexual Abuse Act. An action for child sex abuse must be filed within two years after "the reasonable discovery of the injury and its casual relationship to the act of sexual abuse" but the limitations period may be tolled because of the plaintiff's "mental state, duress by the defendant, or any other equitable grounds," the act says.

"We conclude that pursuant to the Act, the trial court must first determine when a reasonable person subjected to childhood abuse would discover that the defendant's conduct caused him or her injury. That is an objective test," wrote Wallace. "If that period is more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint, then the court must next determine whether the statute should be tolled because of 'the mental state, duress by the defendant, or any other equitable grounds.'"

The justices remanded the case for that analysis and said that since Rand made several factual and credibility findings, another judge should handle it.

Voytac's lawyer, William Johnson, says he and is client are pleased with the ruling. "The Court correctly interpreted the act as saying there is an objective standard to be applied when determining when the cause of action accrued," says Johnson, of Dover's Johnson & Johnson. "The Appellate Division had applied a subjective standard."

R.L.'s lawyer, Victor Rotolo, who runs his own firm in Lebanon, says he relishes retrying the case. "I have to go back to the beginning, but that's fine," he says. "The ruling gives plaintiffs a clear roadmap as to what they have to do."

Thorpe v. Wiggan, 405 N.J. Super. 68, (2009).

The doctrine of parental immunity has always protected parents from judicial intervention in normal child rearing decisions. The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division recently reexamined this doctrine in Thorpe v. Wiggan. This matter involves the tragic death of a four year-old child, Joseph Wiggan, who burned to death while a passenger in a car driven by his father. This is a negligence acting being brought by the child’s mother against defendant for failing to remove his son from the car before the fire started. The plaintiff appealed the order dismissing her complaint, and the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
There are two versions of the facts. The first was relayed by defendant to a state police detective via telephone. In this version, he was driving on Route 78 when he noticed that his car was emitting smoke. He then heard “2 bangs,” & he smelled the smoke also, so he pulled over into the shoulder. He got out of the vehicle checked around and so the car was full of smoke. His child was in the back seat, but he was unable to get him out. He wound up in the hospital. He got burned.
The second version of the events, the defendant claims he heard the same “2 bangs,” and he believed a tire blew up. The care then “blew up in flames.” He pulled the car to the shoulder, ran into the bushes and rolled to put the fire out that was on him. Plaintiff conceded that she had no claim against defendant for his second version of the events. Plaintiffs only claim lies under the State Police version.

Continue reading "Doctrine of Parental Immunity not a protection from ordinary negligence." »

Paternity testing can cost up to $500, not including attorneys fees, should you desire representation.

If the father of your child contests paternity, you should file a Paternity Complaint wherein a hearing will take place and a paternity test will be scheduled. N.J.S.A. 9:17-38 is known as the New Jersey Parentage Act.

There are certain instances where paternity is presumed.

Continue reading "New Jersey Parentage" »

In a recent New Jersey case, a mother's parental rights were reinstated after the New Jersey State Supreme Court found that DYFS failed to prove the mother was unwilling and unable to eliminate threats of harm (in this case, the presence of the child's father).

The Division of Youth and Family Services, more commonly known as DYFS, files for termination of parental rights. By clear and convincing evidence, DYFS must show the following: (1) the child's safety, health, or development is endangered by the parental relationship; (2) the parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm facing the child; (3) DYFS made reasonable efforts to provide services to help the parent; and (4) termination will not do more harm than good.

Continue reading "New Jersey: Termination of Parental Rights" »

On June 15, 2007, former Baywatch star and singer, David Hasselhoff won full and physical custody of his two teenage daughters, 14 year-old Hayley and 17 year-old Taylor-Ann.

His ex-wife, Pamela Bach, has been granted alternate weekends and on Wednesday nights for dinner.

Continue reading "Custody – David Hasselhoff" »

On April 10, 2007, Gretchen Bonaduce filed for divorce from former “Partridge Family” child star, and now radio and TV host, Dante Daniel (“Danny”) Bonaduce after 17 years of marriage, citing irreconcilable differences.

According to the divorce papers, Gretchen is seeking legal and physical custody of their 6-year old son, Count Dante Jean-Michael V. and 12-year old daughter, Countess Isabella Michaela of the marriage, with visitation to Danny.

Continue reading "Divorce - Danny Bonaduce & Gretchen Bonaduce" »

On April 26, 2007, Bobby Brown filed a lawsuit against ex-wife Whitney Houston in an attempt to change the custody terms as to their 14 year-old daughter, Bobbi Kristina. In addition to the shared custody, he is seeking child support and spousal support. A court date has been set for June 15, 2007.

Continue reading "Custody Battle – Bobby Brown Sues Whitney Houston" »

Continue reading "New Jersey Kinship Legal Guardianship" »

A custody hearing was conducted on April 13, 2007 to determine the custody of Anna Nicole Smith and Larry Birkhead’s baby, Dannielynn. The Court had unfortunately adjourned without a decision, and will resume in one week’s time.

Despite this delay, Howard K. Stern reported that Mr. Birkhead is already doing a great job of changing his daughter’s diapers, and the transition of parenthood has already begun.

Continue reading "Custody - Dannielynn Hope Marshall Stern" »

The Star-Ledger reported yesterday that former New Jersey Governor, James E. McGreevey, who is in the midst of a divorce, has included among his request for relief the sole custody of the parties' five year old daughter, Jacqueline. http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-11/11737647504550.xml&coll=1

The amended complaint seeks child support and provides Dina Matos McGreevey, the mother and soon-to-be ex-spouse, with visitation rights.

Presently, Governor McGreevey lives with his partner, Mark O'Donnell.

Continue reading "Former New Jersey Governor is in a Heated Custody Battle" »

On or about February 1, 2007, Actress Anne Heche was served with divorce papers from her husband of over five years, cameraman and “stay-at-home dad”, Coley Laffoon, who filed “irreconcilable differences”. However, it has been reported, but not confirmed, that the split was due to a budding relationship with Ms. Heche’s “Men in Trees” costar, James Tupper.

Continue reading "Divorce & Custody Battle - Anne Heche and Coley Laffoon" »

Shortly after the distressing news of Anna Nicole Smith’s demise, the fight for baby Dannielynn continued on a shocking upward spiral. The potential father list has risen from two to five!

As previously known, Howard K. Stern and Larry Birkhead were the alleged contenders. The paternity test was postponed from January until February 2007.

However, a strange turn of events has since occurred. Two additional men are contending to be Dannielynn’s father; the bodyguard, Alex Denk, and the prince/Zsa Zsa Gabor’s husband, Prince Frederick Von Anhalt. Additionally, Ms. Smith’s sister alleged Ms. Smith had her late 89-year old husband/billionaire oilman, J. Howard Marshall’s sperm frozen, which has been added to the equation.

Continue reading "Custody Battle Continues -- Anna Nicole Smith's Daughter, Dannielynn!" »

After seven years of marriage, Actress, Laura Jeanne “Reese Witherspoon” filed for divorce from Actor, Matthew “Ryan Phillippe” on November 8, 2006, on the grounds of “irreconcilable differences”. However, it has been circulated Mr. Phillippe had an affair with a co-star, was excessively partying, and indulged in drugs.

Ms. Witherspoon is seeking primary physical custody of their two children (mentioned below), with visitation rights to Mr. Phillippe, and sole use of the family residence. She asks the Court that Mr. Phillippe be denied spousal support. [Ms. Witherspoon is represented by Robert Kaufman.]

Continue reading "Divorce - Custody, Reese Witherspoon & Ryan Phillippe" »

As the custodial parent you might think that since the children are under your care and control that as long as you provide them with a warm loving environment it does not matter whether you relocate to another state.

This is not the case. New Jersey law prohibits a custodial parent from moving with the parties' children outside the state without court order or the non-custodial parent's consent.

If the non-custodial parent does not consent to the move, the custodial parent must file a motion asking the Court to relocate. The Court will consider whether the children will suffer from the relocation, whether a relationship will be maintained with the non-custodial parent, and whether regular visitation is possible.

Continue reading "Custody: What You Should Know Before You Leave New Jersey " »

Let's say you and your spouse want a divorce but you don't want to hire attorneys. The two of you feel that you can draft a reasonable property settlement agreement and work with the county court clerk regarding procedural matters.

Beware of your future. Your ex-spouse may challenge the validity of the property settlement agreement, although it will be difficult. New Jersey Courts have held it is a fundamental principle that “the settlement of litigation ranks high in our public policy.” Jannarone v. W.T. Co., 65 N.J. Super. 476, 168 A.2d72 (App. Div.) certif.. denied, 35 N.J. 61, 171 A.2d 147 (1962).

Courts encourage parties to settle. Therefore, Courts are not likely to overturn agreements entered into by the parties voluntarily.

Continue reading "Capacity to Contract and New Jersey Divorce Law" »

In the divorce between Britney Spears and Kevin Federline, Ms. Spears seeks legal and physical custody of their two sons, Sean and Jayden, with visitation rights for Mr. Federline.

Continue reading "Divorce & Custody Battle - Britney Spears & Kevin Federline" »

Is a person you care about going through a divorce? Do you think that person, not only needs an attorney, but needs someone to act in his/her best interest due to his/her cognitive disability?

If this person in your life is mentally incapacitated, it is likely his/her attorney will petition the Court for appointment of a guardian ad litem. A guardian ad litem protects, preserves and secures the interests of the individual that is mentally incapacitated.

Continue reading "New Jersey Guardian Ad Litems" »

So, you don't want to pay child support anymore. What do you need to know?
To start, you should ask yourself the following questions:

1-How old is your child?
2-Does your child attend high school?
3- Does your child work? Full-time or Part-time?
4- Does your college attend college?
5- Does he or she reside with your ex-spouse?

The answers to these questions will determine whether you should file a motion for emancipation.

Continue reading "New Jersey Emancipation" »

Let's face it - sometimes non-custodial fathers are delinquent in their child support payments. What is a custodial mother's recourse? Perhaps, the custodial mother can call the probation department or file a motion to enforce litigant's rights. There are many ways to enforce support orders and/or agreements.

May the custodial mother prevent her ex from seeing his children? Quite simply, the answer is 'no'.

Make no mistake about it, a father's refusal to pay child support is frowned upon. However, it is not up to the custodial mother to decide in what manner to best enforce support, especially if the actions affect children. This issue should be handled by the Courts.

Continue reading "New Jersey Child Support and Visitation: Is There a Connection?" »

More often than not, divorce decrees and settlement agreements are dispositive of physical and legal custody of the children born of the marriage. In most situations, the parties have joint legal custody while one party maintains sole physical custody. The non-custodial parent is awarded parenting-time.

In some situations, the custody agreement which was awarded or agreed to is no longer in the child's best interests. In order to change the custody arrangement in effect, a party must file a motion for modification of custody.

An award of custody is always subject to modification at any time upon a showing of substantial change in circumstance. The primary considerations of the court are the best interests of the child. The court looks to the bona fides of the party seeking modification upon changed circumstances, and will not view a custody agreement entered into by the parties, even in open court, as binding. Sheehan v. Sheehan, 51 N.J.Super. 276 (App. Div. 1958).

Continue reading "Custody: Changing the Custody Arrangement" »