The interpretation and enforcement of provisions of an agreement governing support of children is always guided and restricted by fundamental principles recognizing the parents’ shared obligation to support their children and their children’s right to receive it. See Dolce, supra, 383 N.J. Super. at 19-20; Ordukaya v. Brown, 357 N.J. Super. 231, 241 (App. Div. 2003).

The obligation and right to child support include “a necessary education for children” after high school whether it be in a “vocational school” or a “college.” Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 544 (1982). The existence and extent of a parent’s obligation for the cost of such post-secondary education depend upon considerations of the expectations and relevant abilities of the child and his or her parents under factors identified in Newburgh and reaffirmed in Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 543, 546-47 (2006). ^[1] “Th[ose] factors . . . contemplate that a parent or child seeking contribution towards the expenses of higher education will make the request before the educational expenses are incurred.” Id. at 546. Accordingly, the failure to seek an order compelling contribution before the fact “weigh[s] heavily against the grant of a future application.” Id. at 547.

Under Gac, delay is one factor that weighs against entry of an order compelling a contribution to post-secondary education. Ibid. Gac does not establish a bright line rule permitting automatic denial whenever a request is filed after educational expense has been incurred.

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to Polish-speaking and other clients in Linden 07036; South Amboy 08878; South River 08877; Avenel 07001; Colonia 07067; Iselin 08830; Woodbridge 07095; Somerset 08873; Somerville 08876 and Watchung 07069, New Jersey.

Technorati Tags: child-support, higher-education, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

1. The factors are:
   (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 longrange goals of the child.
   [Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 543 (2006) (quoting Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 545 (1982).]

Delay is one factor that weighs against entry of an order compelling a contribution to post-secondary education; but, it is not a bright line rule permitting automatic denial whenever a request is filed after educational expense has been incurred originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on November 18, 2009.

Although the child support guidelines exclude the income of another household member, ^[1] such as a new spouse, in calculating child support, a current spouse’s income may have relevance to the extent its availability impacts the financial resources of the parent. For example, a current spouse may contribute toward roof expenses, thus alleviating the extent to which the parent has to contribute toward those expenses. That is a fact of interest in fixing a child support obligation. See Hudson v. Hudson, 315 N.J. Super. 577, 583 (App. Div. 1998).

NOTE: 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.

Technorati Tags: child-support, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

1. Appendix IX-B to Rule 5:6A indicates the types of income excluded from gross income in calculating child support. Subsection (f) of that category excludes the “income from other household members (e.g., step-parents, grandparents, current spouse) who are not legally responsible for the support of the child for whom support is being established except to determine the other-dependent credit . . . .” Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-B, at 2428-29 (2010).

A current spouse’s income may have relevance to child support, to the extent that its availability impacts the financial resources of the parent of primary residence originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on November 17, 2009.

The Child Support Guidelines provide that “if the initial child support order is entered when a child is 12 years of age or older, that order and all subsequent orders shall be adjusted upward by 14.6% [the “Teenage Adjustment”]. Whenever the 14.6% adjustment is made, it should be noted in the guidelines worksheet or in the support order. This will clarify the basis of the order for further modifications or appeals.” [See: Child Support Guidelines, Appendix IX-A, § 17. Adjustments for the Age of the Children (at page 21).]

Note: If the child is UNDER 12 years of age when the INITIAL child support order is entered, the Teenage Adjustment is NEVER made. The reason for this is that the child support schedules are based on child-rearing expenditures averaged across the entire age range of zero through 17 years — because of this averaging, awards for children under the age of 12 are slightly overstated (due to the higher level of expenditures for older children). In theory, this overstatement funds the higher costs expected to be incurred when the child reaches the age of 12 and beyond.

NOTE: 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.

Technorati Tags: child-support, child-support-guidelines, child-support-modification, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

Child Support – The Teenage Adjustment originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on November 16, 2009.

“Children are entitled to be supported at least according to the standard of living to which they have grown accustomed prior to the separation of their parents.” Guglielmo v. Guglielmo, 253 N.J. Super. 531, 546 (App. Div. 1992) (citing Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 150 (1980)).

NOTE: Adwokat / Prawnik Pawel Kostro mowi po polsku.

Technorati Tags: child-support, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

Children are entitled to be supported at least according to the standard of living to which they have grown accustomed prior to the separation of their parents originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on November 13, 2009.

Although the N.J. Supreme Court has required courts to consider a son’s or daughter’s efforts to fund their own education, Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 545 (1982), where the parties provided in their interspousal Agreement that they would bear this expense and did not require their children to contribute to their education, this factor is no longer applicable to the issues before the court.

NOTE: My legal services include family law, divorce, child support, litigation, arbitration, mediation, child custody and visitation, alimony, equitable distribution, separation agreements, palimony, property settlement agreements, premarital and prenuptial agreements, midmarriage and marital agreements.

Technorati Tags: child-support, higher-education, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

Where the parties provided in their interspousal Agreement that they would bear the expense of their children’s education and did not require their children to contribute to their education, this factor is no longer applicable to the issues before the court originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on October 28, 2009.

In Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 545 (1982), the Supreme Court established a non-exhaustive list of factors that courts should consider in evaluating whether a parent is obligated to contribute to the expenses of a child’s post-secondary education. Those factors include “whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed toward the costs of the requested higher education,” the parent’s and child’s expectation with respect to higher education, the financial resources available to the parents and the child, as well as the child’s aptitude for the higher education sought, and the relationship of the child to the paying parent. Ibid. Six years after Newburgh was decided, the Legislature codified those factors in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a). Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 543 (2006).

Consequently, both the Legislature and the courts recognize that parents may be responsible for supporting their children while they pursue higher education under appropriate circumstances. Kiken v. Kiken, 149 N.J. 441, 450 (1997) (citing N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a); Newburgh, supra, 88 N.J. at 543-44). “[A] trial judge should balance the statutory criteria of N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a) and the Newburgh factors, as well as any other relevant circumstances, to reach a fair and just decision whether and, if so, in what amount, a parent or parents must contribute to a child’s educational expenses.” Gac, supra, 186 N.J. at 543.

A party’s inability to work does not end the inquiry because, under Newburgh, the court considers “the financial resources of both parents” in addition to “the ability of the parent to pay.” Newburgh, supra, 88 N.J. at 545. See Weitzman v. Weitzman, 228 N.J. Super. 346, 357-58 (App. Div. 1988), certif. denied, 114 N.J. 505 (1989) (requiring parent to contribute to college expenses from an inheritance received shortly following the child’s graduation).

As the court held in Hudson v. Hudson, 315 N.J. Super. 577, 584 (App. Div. 1998), “[a] court cannot consider issues such as college contribution in a vacuum and disregard substantial economic benefits and financial resources inuring to the benefit of a parent as a result of a remarriage.” While a court cannot compel a parent’s new spouse to support his or her stepchildren, the court can take the new spouse’s financial position into account in deciding whether to require the parent to provide support. Ibid. Although, the “limit of a parent’s college contribution should not exceed that parent’s income [or in this case assets] whether earned, unearned or imputed.” Ibid.

A parent cannot be permitted to avoid her responsibility to her children and their educational needs simply by spending or encumbering all personal assets so as to make them unavailable. See Connell v. Connell, 313 N.J. Super. 426, 432 (App. Div. 1998) (“The voluntary choice of the father placing his inheritance in a non-income producing asset should not result in exclusion of that asset from consideration in the child support equation.”). Indeed, under the appropriate circumstances, it can be inferred from a party’s conduct that there was an intent to “insulate it from consideration for support of [the] children.” Id. at 432-33.

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 726 West Saint Georges [W. St. Georges] Avenue (Route 27), Linden, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-486-2200

Technorati Tags: child-support, college-expenses, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

A court cannot consider issues such as college contribution in a vacuum and disregard substantial economic benefits and financial resources inuring to the benefit of a parent as a result of a remarriage originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on October 21, 2009.

The right to child support, including recovery of unreimbursed healthcare expenses, belongs to the child and is not subject to waiver by the parent, including through application of the doctrine of laches. Gotlib v. Gotlib, 399 N.J. Super. 295, 304-307 (App. Div. 2008). See also L.V. v. R.S., 347 N.J. Super. 33, 40-43 (App. Div. 2002).

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to clients in 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.

Technorati Tags: child-support, laches, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

The right to child support, including recovery of unreimbursed healthcare expenses, belongs to the child and is not subject to waiver by the parent originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on October 21, 2009.

When a child is attending college and living on campus, contributions to college expenses and continued support for that child are “discrete yet related obligations,” the extent of which “depends on the facts of each case.” Hudson v. Hudson, 315 N.J. Super. 577, 584-85 (App. Div. 1998); see Beck v. Beck, 239 N.J. Super. 183, 190 (App. Div. 1990) (discussing tuition and reduction in child support included in unallocated alimony); cf. R. 5:7-4 (requiring a showing of “good cause” for award of unallocated support).

College expenses and child support due the parent of primary residence are not governed by the child support guidelines when the child attends college away from home. Child Support Guidelines, Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, Appendix IX-A to R. 5:6A, ¶ 18 at 2401 (2010). The decision to allocate responsibility for college expenses and support is left to the discretion of the trial court, which is to be applied after considering the relevant facts, including any agreement about college, and applying the relevant statutory factors and case law. See N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a); Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 545 (1982); Hudson, supra, 315 N.J. Super. at 582, 584-85.

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 726 West Saint Georges [W. St. Georges] Avenue (Route 27), Linden, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-486-2200

Technorati Tags: child-support, college-expenses, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

College expenses and child support due the parent of primary residence are not governed by the child support guidelines when the child attends college away from home originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on September 21, 2009.

A child’s right to support, unlike the right of a former spouse, is not limited to the standard-of-living during the marriage. See Caplan v. Caplan, 364 N.J. Super. 68, 90 (App. Div. 2003) (discussing child’s right to share in a parents’ post-judgment “good fortune”), aff’d, 182 N.J. 250, 271 (2005); Zazzo v. Zazzo, 245 N.J. Super. 124, 129 (App. Div. 1990) (noting child’s “needs” should be assessed with reference to present income not income during the marriage), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 321 (1991); Weitzman v. Weitzman, 228 N.J. Super. 346, 355 (App. Div. 1988) (considering post-divorce inheritance with reference to college expenses), certif. denied, 114 N.J. 505 (1989).

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to clients in Union, Middlesex, Somerset, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Morris counties in NJ.

Technorati Tags: child-support, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

A child’s right to support, unlike the right of a former spouse, is not limited to the standard-of-living during the marriage originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on September 21, 2009.

Picture by attercop311

NEWS: It appears that the court’s child support guidelines software is NOT ACCURATE!?

See the Order that highlights this problem, filed by the Hon. Mary C. Jacobson, P.J.S.C. on August 28, 2009.

Special Thank You to:

David Perry Davis, Esq.; and

Robert B. Rottkamp, Jr., Esq.

[NOTE: According to the New Jersey Law Journal (198 N.J.L.J. 265; 10/26/2009), reportedly, the problem has been fixed as of September 25, 2009.]

See my somewhat related Blog Post: There is competition in the NJ Child Support Guidelines software market.

See also: COURT PROBES GLITCH IN SOFTWARE USED TO CALCULATE CHILD SUPPORT AWARDS

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator in Linden, Union County, New Jersey.

Technorati Tags: child-support, software, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

It appears that the court’s child support guidelines software is NOT ACCURATE!? originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on September 12, 2009.