NJ Family Issues

RSS | Comments RSS

By statute, parents are presumptively required to provide for the financial support of their unemancipated children

Comments Off No Comments»
October 14, 2009 at 12:31 pm


Law Lessons from LATASHA C. SEWELL V. MARCUS A. HOLMES, App. Div., A-2179-08T3, October 14, 2009:

By statute, parents are presumptively required to provide for the financial support of their unemancipated children. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a). The statute enumerates several factors to consider in calibrating support, including

(1) the “[n]eeds of the child”;
(2) the “[s]tandard of living and economic circumstances of each parent”;
(3) “[a]ll sources of income and assets of each parent”;
(4) the “[e]arning ability of each parent”;
(5) the “[n]eed and capacity of the child for education”;
(6) the “[a]ge and health of [each] child and each parent”;
(7) the “[i]ncome, assets and earning ability of the child”;
(8) the “[r]esponsibility of the parents for the courtordered support of others”;
(9) the “[r]easonable debts and liabilities of each child and parent”; and
(10) “[a]ny other factors the court may deem relevant.”

Ibid.; see also Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 548 (2006) (applying these statutory factors).

For modest-income parents such as the parties in this case, the State has established presumptive Guidelines, and a corresponding worksheet, to calculate child support. See Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-A and IX-B to R. 5:6A at 2383, 2407 (2010). The Guidelines were “developed to provide the court with economic information to assist in the establishment and modification of fair and adequate child support awards.” Id. Appendix IX-A at ¶ 1. The economic data and procedures in the Guidelines “attempt to simulate the percentage of parental net income that is spent on children in intact families.” Ibid.; see also Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250, 264 (2005). The Guidelines were created by taking into account general economic data on matters such as household standards of living; consumer expenditure patterns; food, shelter, transportation and clothing costs; fixed and variable expenses; cost-of-living trends; and other market indicators. See Pressler, supra, Appendix IX-A at ¶ 5.

Our Court Rules prescribe that, for parents with incomes above the specified high-income threshold, the Guidelines “shall be applied when an application to establish or modify child support is considered by the court.” R. 5:6A; see also Lozner v. Lozner, 388 N.J. Super. 471, 480 (App. Div. 2006). “A court may deviate from the [G]uidelines only when good cause demonstrates that [their] application . . . would be inappropriate.” Lozner, supra, 388 N.J. Super. at 480 (citing Ribner v. Ribner, 290 N.J. Super. 66, 73 (App. Div. 1996)).

In determining a parent’s gross income, the court should consult the prior year’s income tax returns when possible and/or consider year-to-date earnings from all documented sources. Pressler, supra, Appendix IX-B at p. 2411.

The trial court should give detailed consideration to plaintiff’s claims of extraordinary expenses for extended-day child care expenses, parochial school tuition, school-related transportation costs, uniform expenses and the other discrete items she has presented. With respect to the school tuition and school transportation costs, plaintiff shall have the burden of demonstrating that these expenses are reasonable and justified, in light of the parents’ limited incomes and the presumptive availability of free public schooling. See id. Appendix IX-A at ¶ 9.

With regard to the child care component, plaintiff shall have the burden of showing that charges are work-related. Ibid. As to the school uniform charges, plaintiff shall have the burden of showing that those charges exceed the normal clothing allowances factored into the Guidelines; it may well be that the school uniform costs are actually lower than the costs of a regular weekday wardrobe for a child in public school.



See related Blog Post, published in the New Jersey Family Law blog.





Print This Post Print This Post
This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator in Linden, Union County, New Jersey. My legal and mediation services are offered to Polish-speaking and other clients in Union, Middlesex, Somerset, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Morris counties in NJ; including the municipalities of Fanwood 07023; Garwood 07027; Kenilworth 07033; Mountainside 07092; New Providence 07974; Roselle Park 07204; Roselle 07203; Elizabeth 07201; Linden 07036; Plainfield 07060; Rahway 07065; Summit 07901; Westfield 07090; Berkeley Heights 07922; Clark 07066; Cranford 07016; Hillside 07205; Scotch Plains 07076; Springfield 07081; Union 07083; Winfield; Carteret 07008; Dunellen 08812; East Brunswick 08816; Edison 08817; Jamesburg 08831; Metuchen 08840; New Brunswick 08901; Old Bridge 08857; Perth Amboy 08861; Sayreville 08871; South Amboy 08878; South River 08877; Avenel 07001; Colonia 07067; Iselin 08830; Woodbridge 07095; Somerset 08873; Somerville 08876 and Watchung 07069, New Jersey. My legal services include family law, divorce, child support, litigation, arbitration, mediation, child custody and visitation, alimony, equitable distribution, separation agreements, palimony, PSA, property settlement agreement, premarital and prenuptial agreements, midmarriage and marital agreements. My Law Office is located at 726 West Saint Georges [W. St. Georges] Avenue (Route 27), Linden, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-486-2200 Adwokat / Prawnik Adwokaci Pawel Kostro mowi po polsku.

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to clients in Linden 07036; Plainfield 07060; Rahway 07065; Summit 07901; Westfield 07090; Berkeley Heights 07922; Clark 07066; Cranford 07016; Hillside 07205; Scotch Plains 07076; Springfield 07081; Union 07083; Winfield, New Jersey.


Technorati Tags: , and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.