Christine and Samih Fawzy, broke off their 14-year marriage in 2005. When their case came up for trial in Middlesex County in 2007, they decided to submit to binding arbitration on all issues, including custody and parenting time. Judge Fred Keiser Jr. warned the decision would be final and could not be appealed but for changed economic circumstances.

After four sessions, the father began to sense the arbitration was going against him, so he sought to back out and have a plenary hearing. Judge Glenn Berman, who had inherited the case, denied the request, the arbitrator made an award and the judge entered a judgment of divorce.

The appellate court in reversing the parenting provisions of the arbitration award, cited Flaherty v. Flaherty, 97 N.J. 99 (1984). Custody and visitation issues weren’t before that court, but the justices said in dicta, “as we gain experience in the arbitration of child support and custody disputes, it may become evident that a child’s best interests are as well protected by an arbitrator as a judge.” The court went on to say, [i]f so, there would be no necessity for our de novo review…[h]owever because of the Court’s parens patriae tradition, at this time we prefer to err in favor of the child’s best interest.”

Brian Paul, who sought to enforce the arbitration on the wife’s behalf, says he will seek Supreme Court review, asking the justices to balance the public policy goals of limiting litigation and protecting children.

The Parties began dating in 1983 and L’Esperance paid for Delvaney’s college education and purchased an apartment for her in North Bergen. The two also tried unsuccessfully to have a child together. She claimed he promised to leave his wife and marry her but never did. They broke up in 2003 and he kicked her out of the apartment.

Justice John Wallace writing for the majority found that the Superior Court had correctly ruled that the Parties never held themselves out as a married couple. The Court also found that there was no proof establishing the claim that L’Esperance promised to support Delvaney.

Wallace further explained that the Court should not limit itself by requiring cohabitation and saying, “[r]ather, we opt for a more flexible approach that seeks to achieve substantial justice in light of the realities of the relationship. It is the promise to support, expressed, or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are indispensable elements to support a valid claim for palimony.”

A large majority of successful palimony claims involve cohabitation, however if a couple holds themselves out as husband and wife the fact that they do not reside together may be immaterial. Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto concurred with the opinion but expressed some concern expressing the opinion that cohabitation should at the very least be a bare minimum” requirement. He cited a California case wherein the Palimony cause of action was created. He goes on to say that “California makes the critical observation that if cohabitation were not a prerequisite to recovery, every dating relationship would have the potential for giving rise to such claims, a result no one favors.” Citing Bergen v. Wood, 14 Cal. App. 4th 854 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).

New Jersey is now the first state that does not require cohabitation as a requirement for Palimony. This decision is a step forward to ensuring fairness in long term marital-type relationships. Most of the cases where Palimony is an issue one of the spouses is either married or has the relationship as something on the side. In cases such as these cohabitation is impossible.

In New Jersey, a surviving spouse has a right of election to take an elective share of one-third of the augmented estate under certain limitations and conditions spouse.

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.

Your obligation will certainly change if your ex becomes a recipient of TANF, i.e. welfare. TANF stands for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

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.

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

The parties had one son together. They divorced agreeing to joint custody with mother having primary residence.

Eleven years after the divorce, in November of 2001, the Middlesex County Board of Social Services notified both parties that either could seek a review of child support. The mother notified the board that she was interested in the review.

Thereafter, the father was notified by the Board that it was gathering his financial information from his employer. The board filed a motion to increase support on November 7, 2003, and then again on November 25, 2003 asking the court to make the increase retroactive to November 25, 2001(the date of the original notice).

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.

A same sex couple purchased a townhouse together, in which title was held solely in defendant's name as was the mortgage on the property. The plaintiff expended approximately $55,000 toward the purchase of the townhouse.

After the parties broke up, the plaintiff alleged that the townhouse was a joint asset, subject to equitable distribution, giving him a 50% interest. In support of plaintiff's position, he alleged the parties had a verbal agreement that his name would be placed on the deed.

The defendant offered to pay plaintiff $93,000 as his share of the home and testified that plaintiff accepted this pay-off. Plaintiff acknowledged that the conversation took place but denied that he accepted the offer.

The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.

On May 29, 2007, Ms. Opri allegedly filed court documents with the Los Angeles Superior Court for all of her travel expenses, expensive lavish dinners, and even for expenses associated with her husband, whom traveled with her, in addition to her “usual hourly rate” of $475.00 per hour, court filing fees, subpoena costs, deposition costs, accounting and appraisal fees, etc. Ms. Opri stated “legal services entailed hundreds of hours of work”.

When asked about his divorce, Mr. Buttafuoco told The Post “All I can say is two words: I’m devastated. That’s all I can say. I’m very sad.”

Joey and Evanka were married on March 5, 2007. No children are shared by the couple.

This is a domestic violence case where the plaintiff alleged defendant acted with a purpose or intent to harass.

The plaintiff, in attempting to explain her fear, attempted to testify to incidents that were not outlined in her complaint. In fact, the plaintiff informed a police officer that there were no prior instances of domestic violence. Therefore, the plaintiff was not allowed to testify to any incidents before the incident at issue.

The Trial Court issued a Final Restraining Order. Defendant appealed.