READ THE POST ENTITLED "PARENTAL ALIENATION: PROGRAMS SEEK SOLUTIONS TO PARENT/CHILD DISCORD" FROM OUR PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY LAW BLOG

Aaron Weems, an associate in our Bucks County office and editor Fox Rothschild's Pennsylvania Family Law Blog wrote an interesting entry entitled "Parental Alienation:  Programs Seek Solutions to Parent/Child Discord." 

The post discusses two programs that deal with parental alienation.  One is Overcoming Barriers Family Camp in Natick, Massachusetts,  The other is the Rachel Foundation for Family Reintegration located in Kerrville, Texas.

There is also a psychologist in New Jersey, Dr. Amy Baker, who has written and lectured extensively regarding this issue. 

We have blogged about this topic several times in the past, both on whether Parental Alienation will be added to the DSM, to Appellate cases addressing this issue, to the possibility of a cause of action in tort being considered, as well as several abduction cases.  We will continue to address this important topic whenever we can provide relevant information about it.

BLOG ON NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION DIVORCE CITED

Recently, I posted a blog entry on the phenomena of the New Years resolution divorce.  Apparently, I am not alone in thinking about this topic at this time of year as my article was quoted in one written by Tony Bertolino who is a Texas attorney.

Whether this is from the sadness many people experience over the holidays or the desire for a fresh start or a better life, it is sadly real. 

ON TIGER, "INDISCRETIONS", "INFIDELITIES" AND SO ON - ALL OF THE GOSSIP GIVES RISE TO A GREAT LAW SCHOOL EXAM QUESTION

I have blogged several times about the celebrity divorces that have been in the news, from John & Kate, to Christie Brinkley, to Stephanie Seymour, to Jim Nantz, to the McCourts who own the LA Dodgers and others.

Every day for the last few weeks, Tiger Woods has been front page news regarding what he first called "indiscretions" and now calls "infidelity."  We have heard in the news about potential sweeteners to his prenuptial agreement if his wife stays, to rumors that she will leave him and so on .  Obviously, since the information from Tiger and his wife is limited, people are left to speculate and gossip.

 As a New Jersey Divorce Lawyer, the best that I can offer is to give some comments on how New Jersey divorce and family law would apply to the facts (hypothetical, speculation or true facts that have been reported). 

In New Jersey, marital fault is largely irrelevant except in limited circumstances.  Though not particularly necessary anymore since we have no fault (irreconcilable differences) divorce, the fault ground of adultery can still be plead as a divorce cause of action.  That said, receiving a divorce based on adultery does not get you anything more financially.

In fact, a few years ago, the Supreme Court reinforced this point in the case of Mani v. Mani where they held that absent extreme situations, fault is irrelevant to alimony and equitable distribution. The exception could be in marital funds were used to fund the affair.  Given that there appears to be a prenup, this would not likely be an issue for Tiger.

There is a question as to whether, in New Jersey, a pre-nuptial agreement could be modified.  Obviously, if the benefit in the new prenup is greater, perhaps it could be possible.  However, it would have to have same formalities as an actual prenuptial agreement.  There would seemingly have to be full disclosure.  However, an interesting issue that could put  jeopardize the enforceability of an agreement is that there seemingly would be no consideration for the agreement. 

However, while New Jersey looks very carefully at post-nuptial agreements, mid marriage agreements could be enforced in limited circumstances.  In those cases, the marriage would have to be on the precipice of termination and would not stay together but for the agreement. 

As to custody and parenting issues, infidelity does not usually have an impact on these issues.  That said, if someones conduct is so dangerous, destructive, reckless, etc. that it either evidences some psychological issue or the inability to parent, then perhaps it could impact custody.  I am in no way alleging or implying that that is the case here. 

Finally, I have had cases where the infidelity lead to an STD being transmitted from the philandering spouse to the innocent spouse.  Again, I am in no way alleging or implying that that is the case here.  In a recent case that I had where this occurred, we amended our divorce pleading to add tort causes of action. 

So with each day, as the gossip continues to fly, the potential family law issues implicated multiply.  Stay tuned to see what next occurs in this sad soap opera.

SHOULD YOU MAKE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION?

In New Jersey, in a family court matter, if a party’s position is unreasonable or taken in bad faith, the other party can seek reimbursement of attorney’s fees. This was the case in the recent unpublished decision of Ramirez v. Ramirez, New Jersey App. Div., Docket No. A-2035-08T32035-08T3, November 24, 2009

 In Ramirez, the parties were divorced by a Dual Final Judgment of Divorce entered on January 29, 2007, which incorporated a settlement agreement. Following the divorce, in three separate motions, plaintiff persisted in seeking a re-calculation of defendant's income based upon allegations and documentation relating to circumstances that existed for several years prior to their 2007 divorce. In his December 21, 2007, decision the judge put plaintiff on notice that she had failed to establish a change in circumstances. Nonetheless, plaintiff filed a cross-motion in August 2008 and a motion for reconsideration on October 6, 2008, both of which continued to seek the same relief based upon the same allegations. As a result, defendant was compelled to incur "unnecessary costs" for which he is entitled to be reimbursed. Under these circumstances, the judge awarded and the Appellate Division affirmed the counsel fees awarded to defendant.

Plaintiff’s position was that the benefits that the defendant received from his employment for his family’s business, including mortgage payments, a bonus, pay raises, payment of property taxes, etc., should be included in determining defendant’s child support obligations. While the plaintiff may have been correct, she failed to dispute his income when they were divorcing and alimony had been determined. As a result, there was no “change of circumstance” in the defendant’s income.

Plaintiff may have had a good faith basis to seek the re-calculation of defendant’s income, however after the judge made his ruling and absent new or additional evidence, plaintiff should not have filed a motion for reconsideration unless new proofs or information substantiating her claims could be provided. A motion for reconsideration must state "the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has erred." Reconsideration is within the discretion of the court.

A party should not file an application for reconsideration merely because of their dissatisfaction with the court’s decision. In New Jersey, in matrimonial actions the award of counsel fees rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge.

A motion for reconsideration is a useful tool especially when there is new information or when a judge may have missed a key fact. If filing a motion for reconsideration is something you are considering, you must carefully assess whether there is no information which would change the court’s mind or whether there was key information that the court missed the first time around. If the application is brought in bad faith, it could result in an award of counsel fees to the other party. 

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER CELEBRITY DIVORCE

Connecticut seems to be the hotbed of celebrity divorces these days. 

Yesterday's news reported that model Stephanie Seymour will have to make due on $270,000 per month in temporary support while her case is pending.  The news accounts report that her husband nets $1.5 million per month making this appear to be a veritable drop in the bucket.

Today's new reports that sportscaster Jim Nantz has to pay his wife $72,000 per month in permanent alimony plus $1,000 per week in child support.  This is a substantial amount if his income is $3.2 million as noted in one place but not so much if his income is $7 million as reported in other places. 

Aside from a look into the lives of the rich and famous, this shows another thing - that is, divorce can be a very public airing of very private matters.  While perhaps it may be more noteworthy for celebrities, even much of regular people's divorce can become part of the public record.  While it is not possible to completely avoid this, treating each other in a dignified and fair manner and settling issues is a way to help keep things out of the public record.