Child Support

Subscribe to Child Support

Today was a good day.  For me and for my client.  It fills me with hope that tomorrow will also be a good day.  Why you ask?  After 36 years of wondering, guessing, dreaming, frustrating, I brought my client one step closer to knowing, for certain, who she is.

You see, this client found me about 3 months ago.  After speaking to several attorneys, all of whom told her she had no case because of her age, she found me.  We had a lengthy phone call where she shared her life story with me.  What brought her to the point of seeking legal recourse was simple – she was facing a variety of medical issues, the causes of and exact diagnosis difficult to know without having a full medical history, including that of her natural birth parents.  And here her problem lied.

My client, a 36 year old woman residing outside the state of New Jersey had no way to provide that information to her doctors.  Her mother was deceased.  And she had no confirmation of exactly who her biological father was.  She did have a solid suspicion based on information and stories she was told growing up, but her birth certificate was devoid of this.

We talked about her medical challenges in great detail.  We mulled over the options.  Ultimately, we decided to file a Complaint to Establish Paternity, despite the fact that we were 13 years pass the statute of limitations (technically) to bring such a claim.  But as with many areas of the law, there is gray and our facts fit squarely into the gray.

To give some perspective, the New Jersey Parentage Act, N.J.S.A. 9:17-38 et seq., provides the legislative mechanism by which parties may seek to establish paternity for a child in the state of New Jersey.  The Act establishes a twenty-three (23) year statute of limitations on bringing actions to establish parentage thereunder, as no action shall be brought more than five (5) years after the child reaches the age of majority, which is eighteen (18) years of age.   The Act permits the child to bring the action on his or her own behalf.  In reality, any interested party has until the child reaches the age of twenty-three (23) to bring the action.

However, in certain circumstances, the twenty-three year statute of limitations may be equitably tolled.  The seminal case on this issue is the New Jersey Supreme Court opinion in R.A.C. v. P.J.S., Jr., 192 N.J. 81 (2007).  In that case, the child’s mother’s husband (who believed he was the child’s father) brought a reimbursement action against the alleged biological father.  The action was brought past the statute of limitations, when the child was over thirty (30) years old.  The trial court in R.A.C. decided that the “[s]tatute of Limitations should not frustrate [the son’s] right to know his own potential genetic make-up,” particularly in light of the “serious medical condition” he may have inherited from his biological father.  The appellate court affirmed, finding that the “application of the doctrine of equitable tolling in this case [did] not undermine the purposes of the Parentage Act” because allowing the claim to proceed would not “disrupt fragile familial relationships,” thus “leav[ing] a young child bereft of required paternal guidance,” but rather lead to “a reconciliation of obligations.”  The appellate court went on to note that although statutes of limitations generally protect a party from having to defend against stale claims, when that party induces or tricks a putative plaintiff into letting the deadline pass, equitable tolling may apply. In R.A.C., the appellate court determined that the mother and biological father engaged in a pattern of deception, concealing from plaintiff his son’s true parentage and did not time-bar the claim.

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding that the plain language of the Parentage Act and the legislative intent barred such actions beyond the twenty-three (23) year time limit.  The Supreme Court noted that the tendency in New Jersey has been to reject the discovery rule for statutes of limitations that run from a fixed, specified event.  The Court found that: “the question here is whether equitable tolling can ever apply to a repose statute…we believe that it can.  However, in light of the purpose of a repose statute, which is to set a fixed end to the limitations period regardless of when the cause of action accrues, we expect that equitable tolling will arise only in extraordinary circumstances consistent with legislative intent.” (emphasis added).

Noting the scant legislative history, the Court found that:

The twenty-three-year timeframe for filing a paternity action coincides with the recognized period when a child is in need of financial support and a parent legally bears a financial obligation to provide that support. See Wingate, supra, 149 N.J. at 239, 693 A.2d 457. In most cases, a parent will no longer be bound to support a child who reaches the age of majority. Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 543, 443 A.2d 1031 (1982). Therefore, the “major concern” of the Parentage Act, the financial support of children, is no longer an issue after children have reached the age of twenty-three and presumably are capable of supporting themselves….By setting a fixed time period, the Legislature evidently understood that there would be cases, perhaps many cases, in which paternity would not be established within the twenty-three-year timeframe and that a biological father who bore the responsibility of raising and supporting a child would be relieved of his obligation. The Legislature did not create a scheme providing for an indefinite liability period,  but instead created one that allowed persons to reasonably expect that the slate would one day be “wiped clean.” The Legislature evidently knew what has been known since time immemorial that children would be born of adulterous relationships and that the true identity of the father might not be known for more than twenty-three years. The repose statute does not contain any carve out for such situations.

I must point out that the Court was addressing an action for support (or more specifically, reimbursement for support).  The prayers for relief in R.A.C. were financial in nature.  In a footnote, the Court stated that:

In light of the muscular dystrophy gene that afflicted Patrick’s family, we do not doubt that Darren’s need to know his biological background for health and family planning purposes might have been an “extraordinary” circumstance warranting the tolling of the statute to allow for DNA testing to establish paternity. See generally Fazilat, supra, 180 N.J. at 88, 848 A.2d 761 (commenting that “confirmation of one’s lineage may also provide `medical benefits’ by allowing the child to learn of the potential diseases and abnormalities he or she may inherit from parents and their forbears”). In this case, Darren was not a named plaintiff, and therefore this lawsuit is not about Darren’s right to know his genetic make-up. Id. (emphasis added).

Close up of wooden gavel isolated on white background

This footnote became highly relevant to my client’s argument and helped to establish the “extraordinary circumstances” we believed the court intended.

She will now, by virtue of court Order get paternity and genetic testing.  If the information she was provided her entire life regarding the identity of her biological father was correct, she will have confirmation and peace of mind.  Even now she feels legitimized and well on her way to finding the missing piece of her puzzle.  After all, should we not all have that?

I love the practice of law.  My specialty area gives me opportunities to impact people’s lives in a way that other attorneys may never experience in their career.  Today some lost idealism was returned to me and for that, it was a good day.

 

With the costs of college ballooning out of control, determining which of the divorced parents will pay for what percentage of a child or the children’s college has evolved into high stakes litigation that is on par with questions such as equitable distribution and alimony.   With the federal tax law changes regarding deductability and taxability of alimony and the year end rush to finalize agreements,  I experienced settlement discussions abruptly end last week because of this very issue.  This question has been addressed many times but New Jersey’s judiciary and was most recently considered in the unpublished appellate decision of Landre v. Landre, A- 5080-16T1.

The defendant-wife in Landre had filed a post-judgement motion to enforce a Matrimonial Settlement Agreement (MSA) that required the plaintiff-husband to contribute to their oldest child’s college expenses based on a pro-rata calculation of the parties’ income percentage for contributing.  The trial court granted the motion, and plaintiff appealed.

The parties had two children and were divorced in 2002. The MSA, incorporated into the judgment of divorce, addressed college expenses for the children. The MSA contemplated both parents would be involved in the college selection process and established the parties’ contribution to college expenses would be calculated on a pro rata basis.  The MSA established the following regarding the payment of college expenses:

“The parties recognize their obligation to contribute to the cost of their children’s post-high school education should the child demonstrate an aptitude for and an interest in same. The parties shall consult in advance with regard to post-high school education for their children. During the child’s senior year in high school, the parties shall communicate, in writing, concerning the child’s choices for post-high school education. In the event that either party does not approve of any institution to which the child seeks to make application, such disapproval shall be given in writing, with the reasons set forth, 30 days prior to the application deadline. If such disapproval is not set forth in writing, with the accompanying specific reasons for such disapproval, then there shall be a presumption that both parents agree to contribute to the cost of any and all institutions to which the child applies and is accepted, according to the terms of this Agreement. In no event, however, shall either party act in such an unreasonable manner as to prohibit the child from applying to any such institution.

The parties shall contribute to the cost of the child’s post high school education on a pro rata basis, in accordance with their respective earned and unearned incomes at the time the child is accepted into the institution. The parties’ obligation to contribute to the cost of post high school education shall apply only after exhausting all loans, grants, scholarships, the value of the UGTMA accounts that then exist for the benefit of the children, and any other sources of financial aid to which a child might be entitled.”

In opposition to defendant’s motion to enforce the MSA regarding the oldest child’s college expenses, plaintiff argued that defendant (1) did not include him in the child’s college selection process; and that (2) he should receive a credit for scholarships and financial aid that the child had declined from other universities that were not offered by the school that was eventually chosen.

The trial judge held he was “not making a decision about which school the child should attend,” and limited his decision to the percentage contribution of each parent for college expenses.  The judge determined it was undisputed that each party anticipated contribution toward the expense, and hence, the court was not undertaking a determination of whether contribution was warranted in the first instance.  Therefore, a decision based on the factors in Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982) was not necessary (see below).  The trial judge further ruled that a court may take certain principles in Newburgh into consideration in making a determination, but the question of whether a parent should be compelled to contribute requiring application of the factors were not before the court.

Unfortunately for the trial court judge, the Appellate Division disagreed and ruled that the Newburgh factors should have been applied, even in cases where the property settlement agreement, or judgment of divorce, or MSA, as in this case addressed college contributions. See Gotlib v. Gotlib, 399 N.J. Super. 295, 310-11 (App. Div. 2008).

Newburgh states that a parent’s obligation for the cost of postsecondary education depends upon the expectations and relevant abilities of the child and the parents considering all relevant factors, including:

(1)       whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed toward the costs of the requested higher education;

(2)       the effect of the background, values and goals of the parent on the reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher education;

(3)       the amount of the contribution sought by the child for the cost of higher education;

(4)       the ability of the parent to pay that cost;

(5)       the relationship of the requested contribution to the kind of school or course

of study sought by the child;

(6)       the financial resources of both parents;

(7)       the commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education;

(8)       the financial resources of the child, including assets owned individually or held in custodianship or trust;

(9)       the ability of the child to earn income during the school year or on vacation; (10) the availability of financial aid in the form of college grants and loans;

(11)     the child’s relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance; and

(12)     the relationship of the education requested to any prior training and to

the overall long-range goals of the child.

[Id. at 545.]

The Appellate Division stated that “when making a decision regarding the obligation of a parent to contribute to college expenses, the judge has “an obligation under Newburgh and N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) to consider all the enumerated factors” and should not base its decision on any single factor. Gotlib, 399 N.J. Super. at 309 (quoting Raynor v. Raynor, 319 N.J. Super. 591, 617 (App. Div. 1999)).

Because the trial judge did not apply the Newburgh factors in the trial decision, the Appellate Court remanded to the trial court.

The Appellate Court also ruled that the “plaintiff’s interpretation of the MSA [was] flawed.”  The MSA did not require scholarships or financial aid from other schools be considered in determining plaintiff’s contribution to college expenses. The MSA required that the child accept all “loans, grants, scholarships,” and “any other sources of financial aid” at the school he or she decides to attend.  The Appellate Court determined that the financial aid offered by the two unselected schools should be considered on remand as a factor in determining plaintiff’s contribution toward the oldest child’s college expenses.

The Appellate Court further ruled that in addition to the Newburgh factors in determining contribution toward college costs, there are additional equitable considerations that may be taken into account.  The Appellate Court identified one such consideration as whether there are younger siblings of relatively close age who are likely to attend college at the same time as the older sibling. In such circumstance, the family court may consider a reasonable financial plan, which fairly allocates present and future funding resources among all of the children, rather than exhausting all resources on the oldest child who happens to attend college first. Black, 436 N.J. Super. at 134. On remand, the Appellate Court stated that in analyzing the resources of the parents and the amount they can pay toward the oldest child’s education, it is appropriate for the judge to consider the parties will likely need funds available in the immediate future to pay college expenses for both children simultaneously.

As demonstrated in Landre, who pays for college when parents are divorced is not an easy question and will likely be different in each case based on facts and circumstances.

Sandra C. Fava, Partner, Fox Rothschild LLPSandra C. Fava is a partner in the firm’s Family Law Practice, resident in its Morristown, NJ office. You can reach Sandra at 973.994.7564 or sfava@foxrothschild.com.

It is not unusual for parties to address their children’s college education in their Marital Settlement Agreements.  If children are college age or close, parties may actually specifically determine the percentages that they will pay for college costs (including pre-college costs such as SAT/ACT preparation, application fees, etc.)  If the children are younger, parties often acknowledge their responsibilities and define the types of things will be covered, but defer the determination of their actual percentage shares until the children are in their senior year of high school.  Very often, the agreement will provide that the children are required to apply for all available financial aid, grants and loans.  Since student loans may be easy to obtain to fund the vast majority of college, at times, parties may limit the loans that they are going to force their children to take to subsidized student loans (e.g. Stafford, Perkins) which are limited vs. private loans where they could borrow vast sums.  But if college is a part of support of children in New Jersey, at least children of divorced parents or never married parents (vs. children of intact families that don’t seem to have the same rights), can they be forced to take loans to pay for an obligation that is supposed to be their parents’ obligation?

The issue of student loans was one of the issues addressed in the unreported (non-precedential) Appellate Division opinion in the case of M.F.W. v. G.O. decided today.  In this case, the parties divorced in 2003 when their daughter was 5 years old.  Their settlement included an agreement to pay for college and also had the typical language requiring that the child, “… “shall apply for all loans, grants, aid and scholarships available to her, the proceeds of which shall be first applied to college costs.”  When it became time for the child to go to college, in this case Georgetown, at a cost of more than $66,000 per year, the mother sought the father’s contribution for both college and pre-college costs.  When the issue wasn’t resolved, an enforcement motion was filed.  One of the father’s defenses was that the daughter should have been required to obtain loans.  It should be noted that the father’s net yearly income increased from approximately $80,000 per year at the time of the divorce to approximately $217,000 at the time of the motion.

The trial judge rejected the father’s request to enforce the agreement and require the daughter to seek student loans, finding it to be “repugnant.”  As noted by the Appellate Division:

The court found it was “unfair and unjust” to require Jane to apply for “all loans, grants, aid and scholarships available to her” and to apply them first to the college costs because Jane “should not be bound to a contract which she is not a party to” and because the parents “have a legal obligation to support” her “and cannot compromise that obligation even if they both agree.” The court found this provision of the PSA is “repugnant and will not be enforced.”

That is an interesting holding because I have seen these clauses enforced all of the time.  Seemingly, this is because the court found that “the parties have the financial wherewithal to meet all of their daughter’s financial needs for college.”  But many times I have seen this provision in agreements where the parties seemingly have the financial wherewithal though sometimes I shake my head because unless parties have saved substantially for college, most people can’t afford to pay for college out of income, even at the income levels in this case.  Moreover, some people of means include these clauses because one or both believes that the children need to have “skin in the game”, or because their parents didn’t pay for their education, or for any other reason.  As noted above, if parents of means in an intact family make their child take out loans for college, that is their prerogative and the children probably have no recourse.

Back to M.F.W., the father appealed arguing, among other things not germane to this post, that the trial court should have enforced the parties’ agreement regarding loans and the Appellate Division affirmed the decision.  With regard to the student loan issue, the Appellate Division noted that agreements are usually enforced and should not be disturbed, unless there is a change of circumstances.  You get the sense that the court was inferring that this is what the trial judge meant in his decision, assuming it was not specifically stated as such.  The change of circumstances was the parties increased income.  Accordingly, they held that

The court found “unfair and unjust” the provision that required Jane to apply for loans and financial aid because it was the parents’ obligation to pay for college and they had the ability to do so. Defendant acknowledged that “[t]he parties both have significant financial resources and can afford to send their daughter to Georgetown University.”  The court did not err by not enforcing this provision.

…

We cannot say, given the parties’ incomes, that the court erred by not requiring Jane to obtain loans or other financial aid where she would be financially obligated to repay the funds in the future. Her parents had agreed to pay for her college expenses under the PSA. This would include any loans to pay those expenses.

There appears to be a contradiction here.  Was the loan requirement eviscerated because of the parties’ increased income or because the parties agreed to pay for college and that this would include loans?  The latter suggests that it was intended that the agreement to pay for college included the agreement to pay for the loans that the child was going to be required to pay.  That certainly is not the standard practice.  Moreover, if the court is interpreting the agreement in that way, then there would not be a change of circumstances because they are interpreting the agreement to pay for college to also be an agreement to pay loans too.

Left unsettled by this case is (1) whether you can make your kids take out loans and if so (2) whether that agreement means that you have to pay for the loans your children take out if you agree to pay for college.   If nothing else, though not precedential, this case provides ammunition to parents seeking to compel the other parent to pay for college, whether or not their Agreement requires that the children take out loans.

_________________________________________________________

Eric S. Solotoff, Partner, Fox Rothschild LLPEric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, Eric is resident in Fox Rothschild’s Morristown, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973) 994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.

Connect with Eric: Twitter_64 Linkedin

While we do not typically blog on cases outside of the family court, a recent law division case examined the child support lien statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:56.23b and its impact on settling a personal injury case and on settlements in general.  The statute requires that a child support judgment search be performed to determine if a plaintiff in a given lawsuit has an outstanding child support obligation.  If he or she does, then the statute requires that any “net proceeds of a settlement” (i.e. the proceeds left after the payment of attorney’s fees, witnesses’ fees, court costs, and other related costs associated with the lawsuit are deducted from the settlement award) in excess of $2,000 be paid in either full or partial satisfaction of the outstanding child support arrears.  For example, let’s say $10,000 was owed in child support arrears, and a given plaintiff’s litigation costs totaled $10,000.  If the plaintiff took a $20,000 settlement, then $10,000 would go to pay his litigation costs, $8,000 would go to pay off the child support arrears, and the plaintiff would get to keep $2,000 (but would still have $2,000 in child support arrears).

In Smiley v. Thomas, et. al. , the plaintiff sued the defendants for personal injury as a result of a car accident.  He had also entered into a contingent fee agreement with his counsel, meaning that they agreed to take a fixed percentage of whatever the plaintiff was awarded in settlement or after a trial as their fee, rather than charging the plaintiff at their hourly rates.

Eventually, the defendants made a settlement offer of $25,000.  The only problem was, after the child support judgment search was conducted pursuant to the statute, it was discovered that the plaintiff had outstanding child support arrears in the amount of $19,306.04.  After satisfaction of the arrears and payment to his attorneys, the plaintiff would be left with $2,000; in fact, because his counsel fees and litigation costs exceeded the difference between the child support owed and the settlement amount, he would also be left with some unpaid child support arrears because he would have to pay counsel first.  The plaintiff refused to accept the settlement if, at the end of the day, it meant that he would only walk away with $2,000.

"No Deal"
Copyright: pockygallery / 123RF Stock Photo

But, evidently, the plaintiff’s attorney really wanted him to settle his case.  So badly, in fact, that the attorney was willing to reduce his fee.  So, the attorney asked the Court to modify the fee agreement accordingly; but, and here’s the rub, the attorney also asked the Court to call the money that the plaintiff would realize as a result of this reduction something other than “net settlement proceeds” so that they would not be subject to the child support lien by operation of law.

The Court weighed two important competing interests.  On the one hand, Courts love settlements!  Settlements make both parties feel happy (or equally unhappy) with the outcome and therefore (hopefully) curb future or continued litigation.  On the other hand, our case law is replete with decisions affirming over and over again a parent’s obligation to financially support his or her children and there is plenty of case law carving out exceptions, identifying specific needs of the children that should be included in support, and generally providing guidance as to arrival at an appropriate child support arrangement (seriously, there are a lot of these decisions and we’ve blogged on them here, here, here, here, here, and many more times).

Ultimately, the Court determined that a parent’s obligation to financially support his or her children trumps the competing interest in promoting settlement.  The Court found that it had the obligation to call a spade a spade.  It did not, and found that it could not, call the money that the plaintiff would receive as a result of the reduced counsel fee award something other than “net proceeds from settlement” in order to help the plaintiff evade his child support obligation.  To do so would be in direct contravention of the very purpose of the child support judgment lien statute.

headshot_diamond_jessicaJessica C. Diamond is an associate in the firm’s Family Law Practice, resident in the Morristown, NJ, office. You can reach Jessica at (973) 994.7517 or jdiamond@foxrothschild.com.

In a new published (precedential) decision, Ricci v. Ricci, the Appellate Division addressed an adult child’s (an oxymoron, I know) request for her divorced parents to contribute to her college education expenses. Going  back to basics, the Appellate Division reminded us that – before any determination about a divorced parent’s obligation to contribute to college education expenses can be made – a threshold question must be answered, namely: Is the child emancipated?

The Facts

The pertinent facts are as follows:

  • Maura and Michael Ricci divorced when their daughter, Caitlyn, was four (4) years old.  As Caitlyn grew older, she engaged in some less-than-responsible behavior.  This is not in dispute.  Caitlyn graduated from high school in June 2012, at which time it was determined by Caitlyn’s parents that – due to said irresponsible behavior – Caitlyn wasn’t ready to go away to college and live on her own.  Therefore, Maura and Michael agreed that Michael would pay for the summer and fall semesters of community college; Caitlyn attended as a part-time student while continuing to live with her mother.
  • In Winter 2012, Maura and Michael agreed, as a way of testing the waters as to Caitlyn’s readiness to live on her own, that Caitlyn would  participate in the Disney College Program in Florida.  Within a month of starting the program, Caitlyn was expelled for underage alcohol use.
  • This is where the facts get a bit murky.  Maura and Michael say that, after Caitlyn’s expulsion from the Disney College Program, they wanted her to return to community college on a part time basis to complete her associate’s degree and outlined for Caitlyn a program of school, counseling, and work (i.e. a part time job) in order to instill discipline and a sense of responsibility in her.  Caitlyn viewed these expectations as unreasonable and impossible.  What is undisputed is that at this point, Caitlyn moved out of her mother’s home and in with her grandparents.  In Michael and Maura’s views, this move was intended as a rejection of their parenting and their attempts to help Caitlyn.  In Caitlyn’s view, her parents’ unrealistic demands “pushed her beyond the sphere of parental influence.”
  • In March 2013, after Caitlyn moved out, her parents agreed that Caitlyn was emancipated.  They entered into a consent order accordingly.
  • Months later, Caitlyn, still enrolled in community college, filed a motion to intervene in her parents’ divorce matter and sought continued support from her parents; specifically, their contribution to her community college tuition.  In October 2013, the trial court judge granted her application.  Importantly, the judge deemed Caitlyn “un-emancipated [sic] solely for the purpose of a potential contribution from [her parents] as it relates to college costs.”  He ordered that Maura and Mike pay for Caitlyn’s tuition, fees, and costs for the 2013-2014 school year, after application of Caitlyn’s financial aid award.  This amounted to about $2,000, or what the trial judge viewed as a “de minimis” amount.  The judge did not conduct a plenary hearing prior to making its decision that Caitlyn be deemed “un-emancipated” for this specific purpose.  Nor did he conduct a review of the parents’ finances to determine their abilities to pay for Caitlyn’s college expenses.
  • Caitlyn was accepted to Temple University for the Fall 2014 semester.  She applied for financial aid and received it, but had about $18,000 / year in un-met tuition expenses, which she wanted her parents to pay.  Caitlyn filed a motion seeking to enforce the Court’s prior order, arguing that it required her parents to pay her tuition, fees, and book expenses.  Maura and Michael opposed the application, arguing that the October 2013 Order was limited to tuition, fees, and books for the 2013-2014 year and that the Order did not determine their obligations, if any, for college contribution in subsequent years.  In October 2014, the Court granted Caitlyn’s application and “enforced” the prior Order, ordering Maura to cover 40% of the unmet college costs, and Michael to cover the balance.
  • Michael and Maura filed a motion for reconsideration.  They argued that the order was unfounded because Caitlyn had unilaterally moved out of Maura’s home after refusing to even compromise about the plan they had laid out for her to impose discipline; transferred to an expensive out-of-state school without conferring with them; refused to communicate with her parents; and continued to act independently, without regard to their parental input.  In short, they argued, she was emancipated and their obligation to support her ended with her rejection of their parenting.  The Court denied their motion and Mike and Maura appealed from all three (3) trial court orders.

The Legal Framework

Whew, that was a lot of facts!  Now let’s get to the law.  In her opinion, Judge Lihotz walked us through the legal framework to which the Court should adhere in these cases.  First, the Court needs to answer the threshold question of whether the child at issue is emancipated.  Lots more on that below.

Next, if the child is not emancipated, the court must consider whether the child has the aptitude for college.  The seminal Newburgh case does not require deferred emancipation for children reaching the age of majority in every single instance; if a child is unable to perform adequately for his or her academic program, then it may be appropriate to find that the child is emancipated.

Finally, if a child has the aptitude for college, a review of the parents’ finances and determination of their abilities to pay and to afford college must be undertaken so that the Court can determine what a parent may reasonably contribute to a child’s college education expenses.

Highlighting the Threshold Question of Emancipation

In reviewing the trial court decisions below, Judge Lihotz essentially found that the trial judges had put the proverbial cart before the horse by failing to address the threshold question of whether Caitlyn was emancipated or not.

Simply put, the parent-child relationship imbues parents with certain “rights, privileges, duties, and obligations.”  One such duty  is to provide financial support, a form of which is contribution to a child’s college education expenses.    The Court, in exercising its power to protect children, has authority to impose support obligations, but this power is limited and terminates upon a child’s emancipation.

So when is a child emancipated?  Well, Judge Lihotz wrote, this depends upon the nature of the parent-child relationship as much, if not more so, than the age of the child:

The dependent parent-child relationship indicative of unemancipation is not merely shown by a child’s claimed need for financial support.  Our jurisprudence unmistakably mandates there must be examination of the parent-child relationship itself.  In fact, a better description is the relationship is one of interdependence: the child’s right to support and the parents’ obligation to provide payment are inextricably linked to the child’s acceptance and the parents’ measured exercise of guidance and influence.  Conversely, a finding of emancipation is a recognition of a child’s independence from a parental influence. (internal citations omitted).

In this case, Judge Lihotz observed, the two sides of the story could lead to different results.  Caitlyn’s version of the facts was, essentially, that she couldn’t possibly have accepted her parents’ guidance and influence because they were imposing unreasonable, unbearable restrictions and demands upon her; they had forced her outside of their sphere of influence involuntarily, and why should she be penalized for that?  Maura and Michael’s version of the facts, on the other hand, was that they were parenting Caitlyn; she needed their strict guidance due to her wild and irresponsible behavior, but she had outright rejected it and chosen to live independently of them and their influence.  Given the diametrically opposed accounts of what had happened, Judge Lihotz observed, a plenary hearing and a fact-finding should have taken place in order to make a determination as to whether Caitlyn’s version of events rang true such that she should be deemed unemancipated, or whether it was appropriate for her to remain emancipated because her parents’ version of the story was more accurate.

One thing seems to be certain: it was improper for the judge to deem Caitlyn un-emancipated for the limited purpose of assessing college expenses to her parents.  As Heidi Klum might say, you’re either “in” or you’re “out.”

 

Either you are emancipated and not entitled to support from your parents – including payment for college expenses – or you’re not emancipated, and you are entitled to support.

Let’s Try This Again…

Ultimately, Judge Lihotz ordered a remand (legalese for a “do-over”) to the trial court.  First, the trial judge must hold a plenary hearing to determine whether Caitlyn was emancipated after all.  The judge will have to review the record and make an assessment as to whether Caitlyn voluntarily set out on her own path and rejected her parents’ guidance and influence.  If not, and she was not emancipated, then the Court will have to address the secondary questions of whether Caitlyn had the aptitude for her academic program (which, now that Caitlyn is 23 and may or may not have graduated from college by now, should be self-evident), and will have to review the parties’ finances to determine their fair shares of financial responsibility.  But it all boils down to that first question:  was Caitlyn emancipated when she made her initial application?

headshot_diamond_jessicaJessica C. Diamond is an associate in the firm’s Family Law Practice, resident in the Morristown, NJ, office. You can reach Jessica at (973) 994.7517 or jdiamond@foxrothschild.com.

As a matrimonial litigant, you never want to feel that your lawyer does not know how best to take you through the divorce or post-divorce process.  After spending substantial sums of money on an advocate to aid you through a difficult and emotional process, let’s just say that “the blind leading the blind” is not the vibe that you want to be left walking away with.

Unfortunately, however, it happens way too often and I cannot tell you how many times I have had consults with potential clients during which I am told about how disappointed he or she was with prior counsel.  I have had several recent cases where I am left baffled and scratching my head at the inability of a matter to move forward to a trial or settlement – not because of difficult parties or issues of complicated substance, but, rather, a lawyer on the other side who simply does not seem to know what he or she is doing.

The experiences to which I allude are all the more reason to heed the following points when selecting your divorce lawyer:

  • Does the lawyer practice exclusively in the area of matrimonial law? You want a lawyer who knows the law, right?  You also want a lawyer who knows how the law has been applied, how it fits to the facts of your case, and how and when it may be changing.  While no lawyer is going to concede to you that he or she does not know the law, or that acting on your behalf will be a new experience, always do your due diligence before meeting with the attorney to see what you are really dealing with.  Aside from discussing with your referral source, perhaps review the attorney’s online profile to see what articles he or she has written, or what presentations he or she has given on family law topics.
  • Is your lawyer familiar with the judges, lawyers, mediators and experts who may be involved in your matter? This point coincides with the first point.  A lawyer who is well versed in or only practices in the area of family law will more likely be familiar with the people you will come across in the course of your matter.  Knowing how your spouse’s lawyer operates, knowing which mediator may be good or bad for your case, and knowing which expert can best address your financial or custodial needs is of great importance in properly presenting and proceeding in your case.
  • Do you feel comfortable in communicating with your advocate about the law and the facts of your case? You are going to get to know your lawyer very well.  You want to be able to confide in that person all of the good and the bad that may have happened during your marriage, as well as anything that may impact upon your divorce proceeding.  Providing your lawyer with such information and allowing him or her to best address such issues is one of the reasons why you retained that lawyer in the first place.
  • Do you strategize with your lawyer in a way that addresses many different potential approaches while also taking litigation costs into consideration? There are many, many…many different types of divorce lawyers.  There are lawyers who prefer the path of least resistance to get you to a resolution, lawyers who are always aggressive, and so many others in between.  The lawyer you retain should fit your goals and motivations of what you want or believe your divorce matter should be.
  • Is your lawyer responsive to your needs? Responsiveness is one of the issues that I hear about most often from clients who have had prior counsel.  You want to ensure that your attorney gets back to you in a reasonable time to address any issues that you may have.

These are just a few of the critical points that you should consider in retaining matrimonial counsel.  Every lawyer is different, as is every client.  Finding the right match for you is not a decision to be taken lightly, and should be based on a consideration of several factors.  Your attorney is someone who you are going to confide in more than most other people in your life, including, on occasion, your family and friends.  Trust and comfort in your lawyer’s ability to advocate on your behalf is a critical, if not the most critical decision that you may make during the entire divorce process.

 

 

It’s a story as old as time in the New Jersey courts. Alimony is set based upon the income of parties to a divorce, but then years later, a spouse loses his or her job and is unable to continue to make the agreed upon or ordered payments. What is a Court to do?

61199328 - the word of alimony on wooden cubes

In the old days, prior to the enactment of the new alimony statute, judges had certain checklists, gathered from all the law that they typically used to assess whether to obligor would gain relief. You can find that checklist I compiled in 2013 here.

However, now that the new statute is in effect, the question becomes, how should judges treat on obligor’s loss of employment?

Mills v. Mills, an opinion by Judge Jones of Ocean County, approved for publication, provides some guidance on the issue.
In the Mills case, the parties divorced in 2013 after a 13-year marriage. At the time of the divorce, the parties agreed that the Husband would pay the Wife alimony in the amount of $330 per week for 8 years, as well as child support in the amount of $200 per week. This award was based upon the Husband’s income as a district sales manager for a company selling residential and commercial flooring services, earning $108,000 per year and the wife’s income as a teacher, earning $59,000 per year.

In January 2015, after 12 years of employment at the flooring company, the Husband lost his job. The job loss was involuntary; it stemmed from his employer’s decision to restructure its business plan and eliminate the Husband’s position.

The Husband began searching for a new job immediately. In April, 2015, he received an offer of employment form another flooring company, but at a significantly lower salary of $70,000, with a $6,000 car allowance.

At this point, the Husband was faced with a difficult decision – does he accept the job at a lower rate, or decline the opportunity and look for another job closer to his prior income? Ultimately, he decided to accept the new job.

Initially after accepting the new job, the Husband continued to pay alimony at the rate of $330 per week. He had received severance pay of $35,000 and was able to temporarily supplement his income from there. However, as the year neared its end, the Husband had depleted all reserves.

The Husband filed a motion on November 24, 2015 for a prospective modification and reduction of his support obligations based upon a substantial change in circumstances. In the meantime, he earned a performance bonus of $6,000, bringing his total compensation t $82,000, which still constituted a $26,000 from his prior income.

The Wife opposed the motion, and questioned the circumstances under which the Husband lost his prior employment, and that even if the loss was involuntary, he had not demonstrated that he could no longer earn at least $108,000. She also stated that the loss of support would create economic difficulties for her.

The parties were unable to resolve their differences and the matter proceeded to a contested hearing. The Husband testified that when he began at the flooring company, he was earning $50,000 and gradually worked his way up to a salary of $108,000. The Court found that he testified credibly that he could not simply walk into a new position at a new company and immediately command the same salary.
Interesting, the Court began its legal analysis by expounding upon a “Catch 22” in which many obligors found themselves under the old statute.

…no matter what decision he or she made in accepting or declining a new position at a lower pay, that decision might subsequently be critiqued, criticized and even legally challenged by an ex-spouse who, in resisting a reduction in alimony, might contend that the supporting spouse made an inappropriate choice and therefore should not receive a reduction in his or her support obligation   … when a supporting spouse lost his or her job and then declined an offer to take a lower paying position…and instead kept searching for a higher paying position while seeking a reduction in support, the supported spouse would often argue that the obligor unreasonably bypassed an opportunity to earn at least some income that could have been used to pay some of the ongoing support obligation…
…
Reciprocally, if a supporting spouse accepted the offer for new employment at a substantially lower salary and then sought a reduction in support, a supported spouse would often argue that the obligor was underemployed because he or she accepted a position at a significantly decreased level of pay or proven “income potential”…

Judge Jones rejected the suggestion that there is a “one-size-fits-all” legal analysis for approaching and analyzing these types of issues. In that regard, he stated “imputation of income was a discretionary matter not always capable of precise or exact determination”.

After citing the amended alimony statute – N.J.S.A. 2:a:34-23(k) – for guidance as to how to analyze this issue. In doing so, he specifically referenced subsection (2), which expressly references that when an obligor loses his or her employment, a judge may consider the obligor’s documented efforts to obtain replacement employment or pursue an alternative occupation, as well as subsection (3) which provides that a court may consider the obligor’s good faith effort to find remunerative employment at any level in any field.

However, the Judge noted that the amended statute does not expressly establish or provide a specific standard for statutory analysis in situations when an obligor actually obtains new employment at a significantly lower pay, then seeks to reduce his or her support obligation over the supported spouse’s objections.

The Court concluded that as a matter of equity, fairness, as well as the most reasonable, consistent and straightforward analysis would be addressed by the following two-step inquiry:

(1) Was the supporting spouse’s choice in accepting a particular replacement employment opportunity objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances?
(2) If so, what if any resulting support adjustment should occur that is fair and reasonable to both parties, given their respective situations?

In applying this two-step inquiry, as well as the statutory mandates, the Court concluded that the loss of income was involuntary and that the Husband made legitimate efforts to obtain new employment in the same industry in good faith.

While the salary in the new position was lower, the Court found that the Husband nonetheless made an objectively reasonable decision in responsibly trying to begin at a new place of employment. In fact, the Court found that the Husband was very fortunate in this economy to find replacement work.

Nor did the Court find any objective evidence that the Husband was deliberately underemployed or unreasonably turned down or avoided other job opportunities at higher income levels.
After considering all the evidence, the Court reduced the Husband’s alimony obligation to $250 per week and his child support obligation to $194 per week.

With this decision, Judge Jones clearly articulated what I have personally heard many obligors say to me when deciding whether to move forward with a first, second or even third motion for a reduction in alimony based upon reduced income. Whatever step an obligor took, the supported spouse had a response; and one that was well supported by case law.

Either way, the supported spouse would argue that the reduction in income constituted underemployment and that the Court should impute income consistent with the obligor’s prior income.

Judge Jones’ decision provides a clearer analysis that Court should undertake in this all-too-familiar situation.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Eliana Baer, Associate, Fox Rothschild LLPEliana T. Baer is a contributor to the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and a member of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Eliana practices in Fox Rothschild’s Princeton, New Jersey office and focuses her state-wide practice on representing clients on issues relating to divorce, equitable distribution, support, custody, adoption, domestic violence, premarital agreements and Appellate Practice. You can reach Eliana at (609) 895-3344, or etbaer@foxrothschild.com.

More and more, when discussing the payment of college education expenses with clients for their children, I am being asked, “What about graduate school?”  The guiding principal behind that question, I suppose, is that, in New Jersey, it is well-settled that absent extenuating circumstances, both parties to a divorce have an obligation to financially provide for their children’s college educations.  By that logic, if a child seeks an advanced degree, don’t both parties have an obligation to financially contribute to those educational costs as well?

The question of whether a graduate degree is the new undergraduate degree is a debatable one, sure.  But in a recent unpublished (not precedential) decision, J.C. v. A.C., the New Jersey Superior Court determined that even though divorced parents have an obligation to contribute to their children’s pursuit of a college degree in ordinary circumstances, this doesn’t mean that there is a continuing obligation to contribute to the child’s pursuit of a graduate degree.

 

The pertinent question here is whether the child is emancipated, i.e., whether the child has the ability to support him or herself.  New Jersey generally deems children to be unemancipated, even if they are over the age of 18, if they are attending college full time.  This is because our courts have established that a child attending college is generally not capable of supporting him or herself yet.  But, as Judge Jones discusses in J.C., the same cannot necessarily be said of a child who has already obtained a college education and has a college degree.  The Court cannot simply look at graduate school as an extension of undergraduate education, because there are clear differences between a college student with only a high school degree, and a graduate student with a college degree:

First, as previously noted, a graduate student has usually and most critically already obtained a bachelor’s degree, evidencing an enhanced ability to start taking independent responsibility for his or her own life.

Second, a graduate student who already has a bachelor’s degree – as compared to an undergraduate student with only a high school diploma – may logically and inherently more marketable [sic] in certain instances, an therefore reasonably expected to utilize the degree and apply for jobs where he or she can earn an independent living, even if such jobs may pay less than certain positions which require a master’s degree or other advanced degrees that the student can obtain on his or her own at a later date. [. . .].

Third, the distinction between an undergraduate student and a graduate student has been implicitly recognized by the Federal government itself.  When an undergraduate student applies for financial aid through FAFSA, the FAFSA application form generally requires applicants to disclose parental income as part of the information necessary to determine eligibility and the amount of financial aid the applicant may receive.  Graduate and professional degree students are generally considered independent students and are not required to supply information regarding parental income on the FAFSA application. [. . .].

Fourth, absent highly unusual circumstances, a graudate student is, from a chronological standpoint, generally older than the undergraduate student, and therefore naturally expected to be more mature and independent in a manner consistent with his or her years and life experience.  With such years are naturally expected to come the ability to be self sufficient, outside the sphere of parental influence. [. . .].

Fifth, from a standpoint of sensibility, one may legitimately question just how far the concept of extending emancipation and child dependency beyond college graduation actually goes. [. . .]. Does a parent have to financially maintain a “child” who is 25 or 30 years old, just because the child chooses to seek further advanced degrees, and the parent happened to have had an unsuccessful marriage and divorced the child’s other parent many years earlier?  Does such a result make practical sense?

The question then, says Judge Jones, must be:  is this college graduate emancipated, or not?  Judge Jones’ analysis above suggests that the Court should, in most circumstances, consider a college grad to be capable of supporting him or herself – even if he or she might want to pursue a higher education degree that would allow him or her to support him/herself, perhaps, on a higher salary – and therefore be emancipated.  The burden of proof, then, should lie with the applicant seeking a parent’s contribution to graduate educational expenses to show that it is “appropriate, necessary, and equitable under the circumstances” to require continued support by way of an order requiring a parent to help pay for grad school.  The pertinent factors in that analysis would be the oft-cited Newburgh v. Arrigo factors:

  1. Whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed toward the costs of the requested higher education;
  2. The effect of the background, values, and goals of the parent on the reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher education;
  3. The amount of the contribution sought by the child for the cost of higher education;
  4. The ability of the parent to pay that cost;
  5. The relationship of the requested contribution to the kind of school or course of study sought by the child;
  6. The financial resources of both parents;
  7. The commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education;
  8. The financial resources of the child, including assets owned individually or held in custodianship or trust;
  9. The ability of the child to earn income during the school year or on vacation;
  10. The availability of financial aid in the form of college grants and loans;
  11. The child’s relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance; and
  12. The relationship of the education requested to any prior training and to the overall long-range goals of the child.

These, combined with other equitable factors for consideration – most obviously, the inherent differences between a high school student seeking contribution to undergraduate expenses and a college grad seeking contribution to graduate school expenses – have to be considered when determining whether it is fair for a parent to have to contribute to graduate education expenses.

But wait…what about the new statute?

The J.C. v. A.C. case recognizes that, effective February 1, 2017, there will be major changes in the law of emancipation and termination of a parent’s obligation to pay child and other financial support under N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.67.  Under that statute – which will apply retroactively as well as prospectively – a parent’s obligation to pay child support will terminate by operation of law when a child reaches the age of 19, unless a court orders an extension of payment which shall not extend beyond the child’s 23rd birthday.  If a child is enrolled full time in college after he or she reaches the age of 19, then child support will not be terminated until that child reaches age 23, by which time the average college student has indeed graduated.

That’s a long-winded way of saying:  If your kid is in college, child support and a parent’s obligation to pay for college will continue until your kid turns 23.  Then, there can be no more child support.

BUT – and this is a big “but” – the amended statute provides that even though “child support” – i.e. payments from one parent to another for the support of the child – terminates, a child over the age of 23 will be able to seek a court order requiring “other forms of financial maintenance” from a parent.  In other words, a child over the age of 23 can still ask the court to require a parent to pay his/her expenses, it just won’t be called “child support.”

I recently moderated a Continuing Legal Education Panel where the panelists and I discussed this impending new statute, and this very issue was raised:  Under the new statute, could a 23 year old (or older!) “child” apply to the Court for another “form of financial maintenance” from a parent in the form of contribution to graduate education expenses?  And could that child be successful?

Judge Jones’ opinion certainly provides guidance on that question and suggests that not every claim by a child seeking a parent’s contribution to graduate school expenses should be granted under the new statute; the test will be whether the child can meet his or her burden of proof to show that an order requiring a parent to contribute to grad school expenses is “appropriate, necessary, and equitable under the circumstances” based upon the Newburgh factors and any other equitable considerations, including most importantly the general distinctions that can be made between a high school student seeking contribution to undergraduate expenses and a college graduate seeking contribution from a parent for grad school expenses.

headshot_diamond_jessicaJessica C. Diamond is an associate in the firm’s Family Law Practice, resident in the Morristown, NJ, office. You can reach Jessica at (973) 994.7517 or jdiamond@foxrothschild.com.

Many parents want to believe their children are “gifted,” but do they know that this “giftedness” may increase their child support obligations?

Judge Jones’ new published (precedential) opinion, P.S. v. J.S. highlighted the distinction between a regular old “extra-curricular activity” and the pursuits of a “gifted” child, reaffirming that, where a child is “gifted,” the Court may deviate from the Child Support Guidelines to award supplementary child support in order to foster that child’s talents and providing some guidance on how the Court might assess whether a child is “gifted” in a particular area.

38681136 - child with graduation robe

In many cases, the issue of extra-curricular activities is a big one.  Parents want their children to be able to enjoy sports, dance classes, acting lessons, singing lessons, and so on and so forth.  Most parents agree that such activities are important for a child’s enrichment and development.  However, there is often a question over whether the child support payor should contribute to these activities over and above his or her basic child support payment.

In P.S. v. J.S., the parties acknowledged that their daughter loved to act and that they wanted to support her theatrical endeavors.  The only question was whether the non-custodial parent’s child support payment already covered the cost of the daughter’s acting activity, or whether there should be an additional contribution over and above the child support payment.

In his opinion, Judge Jones began by recognizing that the Child Support Guidelines do, in fact, contemplate that the guidelines-based child support award will cover “entertainment expenses,” defined by law to include:

…fees, memberships and admissions to sports, recreational or social events, lessons or instructions, movie rentals, televisions, mobile devices, sound equipment, pets, hobbies, toys, playground equipment, photographic equipment, film processing, video games, and recreational, exercise or sports equipment.

Thus, “extra-curricular” activities are technically covered by a child support award calculated under the Child Support Guidelines.

But just when you think Judge Jones is going to “zig,” he “zags.”  Judge Jones went on to note that Comment 9(d) of the Child Support Guidelines

…expressly provides that the Court may in fact add supplemental funds to guideline-level support to help defray expenses for the development and special needs of a “gifted” child.  Under the guidelines, if a court deems a child to be “gifted” regarding a particular field or discipline, then it may be financially fair, equitable and appropriate for a court, upon application of a parent, to add a reasonable additional earmarked stipend onto both parents’ basic support obligation to help defray the costs of developing, enhancing and encouraging growth of a the child’s giftedness in a specific area.

The Court further held that the supplemental funds awarded to advance a gifted child’s development  “must be economically reasonable, with significant deference to each parent’s financial situation and actual ability to pay.”  In other words, there must be limits commensurate with the parents’ financial abilities.

The question, then, became whether the child at the center of the case was merely interested in acting as an extra-curricular activity, or whether she is a “gifted” actress.  Judge Jones opined that a child’s giftedness will generally relate “to a child’s aptitude , abilities and/or achievements” in one of four areas:  Academics, Athletics, Technology, or The Arts (though he did not foreclose other areas of “giftedness” outside these general categories).  In the particular case before Judge Jones, he found that the child in question was in fact “gifted” at acting.  As a basis for this ruling, he seemed to primarily rely upon two (2) interviews he had with the child approximately two years apart, and his observation that her dedication to and enthusiasm for acting had only seemed to grow in that time.  His decision did not, however, rest upon any sort of evaluation of her acting skills, as he acknowledged in his opinion that he had not observed her perform.  The decision suggests that a determination of a child’s giftedness may not rest upon his or her actual skill level alone.  In my opinion, the criteria for determining whether a given child is gifted will be tested and refined by further cases addressing this distinction between an extra-curricular activity and a gifted child’s pursuit.  Stay tuned…

headshot_diamond_jessicaJessica C. Diamond is an associate in the firm’s Family Law Practice, resident in the Morristown, NJ, office. You can reach Jessica at (973) 994.7517 or jdiamond@foxrothschild.com.

Signed into law on January 19, 2016, New Jersey’s emancipation law is set to take effect on February 1, 2017 and will apply to all child support orders issued prior to or after its effective date.

37774117 - definition of word emancipation in dictionary

One of the highlights of the new law is that it will dramatically impact when and how child support orders will terminate. Specifically, it provides that unless otherwise indicated in a court order or judgment, the obligation to pay child support shall terminate without order on the date a child marries, dies or enters into military service.

Child support will also terminate automatically when a child reaches 19 years of age unless (a) another age for such termination is specified in a court order, which shall not extend beyond the date the child reaches 23 years of age; (b) a written request seeking the continuation of child support is submitted to the court by a custodial parent prior to the child reaching the age of 19; or (c) the child receiving support is in an out of home placement through the Division of child Protection and Permanency in the Department of Children and Families.

Just ahead of the effective date of the statute, Judge Jones issued an opinion on the effect of one child’s emancipation in Harrington v. Harrington. In Harrington, the parties divorced in 2012. The parties have three children, all of whom were unemancipated at the time of the divorce. As such, the parties’ settlement agreement provided that the father would pay the mother the sum of $240 per week in child support for all three children. In what would become a decisive fact in the case for Judge Jones, he noted that the child support was unallocated, rather than broken down or allocated into specific dollar amounts for each child – either on a one-third per child basis or otherwise.

Following the divorce, the father paid child support as agreed without requesting an modifications, even when their oldest child began college. In September, 2014 the parties mutually agreed to emancipate their two oldest children. Two orders were entered confirming the emancipation, but the amount of child support that the father paid remained the same. Further, neither party submitted or exchanged updated financial information or filed any motion.
In June, 2015, the last remaining unemancipated child graduated high school and decided not to proceed to college. The father continued to pay $240 per week in child support nonetheless, without any objection by either party.

In February, 2016, a year-and-a-half after the first two children were emancipated, the father filed a motion for the retroactive allocation of child support to $80 per child, and downward modification of one-third per emancipated child, effective September, 2104. He also sought to emancipate the youngest child and terminate his obligation. The mother consented to the emancipation of the youngest child, but opposed the retroactive modification that the father sought.
With regard to the issue of retroactive emancipation, the Court initially grappled with which law to apply in this situation: should it apply the anti-retroactivity statute which prohibits the retroactive modification of unallocated child support, or does the case law with regard to retroactive emancipation apply?

In reaching its decision, the Court devised a set of equitable factors that should be examined:

1) How much time has passed between the date of one child’s emancipation and the filing date of the obligor’s present motion for retroactive modification of unallocated child support for the remaining unemancipated child or children?

2) What are the specific reasons for any delay by the obligor in filing a motion to review support based upon emancipation?

3) Did the non-custodial parent continue to pay the same level of child support to the obligee, either by agreement or acquiescence, and of his or her own decision and free will, even after he/she could have filed a motion for emancipation at a prior point in time?

4) Did the custodial parent or child engage in any fraud or misrepresentation that caused the obligor’s delay in filing a motion for emancipation and support modification motion?

5) If the non-custodial parent alleges that the custodial parent failed to communicate facts that would have led to emancipation and modification of support at an earlier date, could the non-custodial parent have nonetheless otherwise easily obtained such information with a reasonable degree of parental diligence and inquiry?

6) If the obligor’s child support obligation was unallocated between multiple unemancipated children of the parties, will a proposed retroactive modification of child support over a lengthy period of time be unduly cumbersome and complicated, so as to call into question the accuracy and reliability of the process and result?

7) Did the custodial parent previously refrain from seeking to enforce or validly increase other financial obligations of the non-custodial parent, such as college contribution for any remaining unemancipated child, because during such time period, the non-custodial parent continued to maintain the same level of unallocated child support without seeking a decrease or other modification?

8) Is the non-custodial parent seeking only a credit against unpaid arrears, or rather an actual return of child support already paid to, and used by, the custodial parent toward the financial expenses of the child living in the custodial parent’s home?

9) If the non-custodial parent seeks an actual return of money previously paid to the custodial parent, what is the estimated dollar amount of child support that the non- custodial parent seeks to receive back from the custodial parent, and will such amount likely cause an inequitable financial hardship to the custodial parent who previously received such funds in good faith?

10) Are there any other factors the court deems relevant to the analysis?

In applying the above factors to the present case, the Court considered the following factors: nearly a year and a half passed between the effective date of the emancipation for the older two children and the filing of the father’s motion; there was no reason provided to explain the delay in filing; during that period, the father continued to pay the same level of child support to the mother; there was no evidence submitted that the mother or the children engaged in any type of fraud; the mother and children communicated facts that would have led to a modification of support; and, a retroactive modification of support to 2014 may be unduly complicated given the fact that no financial information was submitted for the period of time in question – 2014-2016.

The Court noted that a hearing should to be scheduled to examine these factors and weigh the comparative equities to determine whether to exercise its discretion and retroactively modify unallocated child support prior to the motion filing date, based upon a prior emancipation of one or more children. However, the Court was somber in its knowledge that this would not be an easy task – i.e. to recreate what child support *might* have looked like over a two year period of time.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Eliana Baer, Associate, Fox Rothschild LLP Eliana T. Baer is a contributor to the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and a member of the Family Law Practice Group of Fox Rothschild LLP. Eliana practices in Fox Rothschild’s Princeton, New Jersey office and focuses her state-wide practice on representing clients on issues relating to divorce, equitable distribution, support, custody, adoption, domestic violence, premarital agreements and Appellate Practice. You can reach Eliana at (609) 895-3344, or etbaer@foxrothschild.com.