Law Lessons from Cardell v. Kirby, App. Div. (A-1398-07T3; Decided December 31, 2008):

Generally, except in those rare cases where the trial court disregards the Child Support Guidelines, Caplan v. Caplan, 364 N.J. Super. 68, 85 (App. Div. 2003), aff’d, 182 N.J. 250 (2005), where the parents’ combined annual net income exceeds the maximum threshold contained in the guidelines, the court, in determining an appropriate child support award, shall apply the guidelines up to the threshold amount and then supplement the guidelines-based award with a discretionary sum based on the remaining family income and application of the statutory factors contained in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23a, Isaacson v. Isaacson, 348 N.J. Super. 560, 581, certif. denied, 174 N.J. 364 (2002); see also Child Support Guidelines, Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-F to R. 5:6A (2009).

In determining whether to supplement the guidelines-based award with a discretionary amount, a trial court’s decision is informed by the following general principles. “Both parents have a shared obligation to support their children.” Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. 298, 306 (App. Div. 2008). That duty is a continuous obligation. Caplan, supra, 364 N.J. Super. at 90. “[W]here the parties have the financial wherewithal to provide for their children, the children are entitled to the benefit of financial advantages available to them.” Isaacson, supra, 348 N.J. Super. at 579. Stated another way, “[c]hildren are entitled to not only bare necessities, but a supporting parent has the obligation to share with his [or her] children the benefit of his [or her] financial achievement.” Id. at 580.

When a court’s attention “is focused on the unique circumstances of the high-income earner whose ability to pay increased child support is not in issue, the dominant guideline for consideration is the reasonable needs of the children, which must be addressed in the context of the standard of living of the parties.” Id. at 581 (emphasis added). “The consideration of needs must include the age and health of the children – with the understanding that infants’ needs are less than those of teenagers – as well as any assets or income of the children.” Strahan, supra, 402 N.J. Super. at 307. In determining a child’s needs, trial courts are to be vigilant, but not overindulgent. Isaacson, supra, 348 N.J. Super. at 583.

Accordingly, “a balance must be struck between reasonable needs, which reflect lifestyle opportunities, while at the same time precluding an inappropriate windfall to the child,” id. at 582, or to the custodial parent. Id. at 584. “[T]he law is not offended if there is some incidental benefit to the custodial parent from increased child support payments.” Ibid. However, the law is offended when the custodial parent overreaches in the name of the benefiting child. Id. at 585.