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 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.

Picture by daveschappell

In Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982), the Court noted that although “[g]enerally parents are not under a duty to support children after the age of majority[,] . . . in appropriate circumstances, the privilege of parenthood carries with it the duty to assure a necessary education for children.” 88 N.J. at 544. The Court then enumerated a series of nonexclusive factors to be considered in evaluating a “claim for contribution toward the cost of higher education.” Id. at 454.

In this case, under the PSA, the parties are to divide the child’s college expenses “based on their respective financial circumstances at the time [the child] is accepted to the education institution she will be attending.”

It is well established that matrimonial agreements are contractual in nature. Pacifico v. Pacifico, 190 N.J. 258, 265 (2007). “As a general rule, courts should enforce contracts as the parties intended.” Id. at 266. Where the terms of a contract are unambiguous, “the court must enforce it as written.” County of Morris v. Fauver, 153 N.J. 80, 103 (1998). The interpretation of a contract is a matter of law and subject to de novo review on appeal. Fastenberg v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 309 N.J. Super. 415, 420 (App. Div. 1998).

Also, the employment of a child may warrant reduction of child support. Lepis, supra, 83 N.J. at 152. Even where the child’s income is temporary or insufficient to render the child economically self-sufficient and justify emancipation, such income might be enough to constitute a change in circumstances that warrants a reduction in child support. Tretola v. Tretola, 389 N.J. Super. 15, 21 (App. Div. 2006) (citing Lepis, supra, 83 N.J. at 146) (finding that the “Family Part judge was remiss in not requiring [the custodial parent] to submit documentation of [the child's] [college] credits and earnings and in dismissing the matter summarily”). In Tretola, the court found that because the child was earning an income of $20,000 per year, through summer and parttime employment, the trial court should have considered “the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 to determine the proper level of support.” Id. at 21.

In this case, the court remand for discovery and a plenary hearing on the college contribution issue. As the court stated in Tretola, “the proceedings cannot take place in a vacuum and the court must consider [the parties'] current circumstances in calculating any future obligations.” Id. at 21-22.

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

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

Even where the child’s income is temporary or insufficient to render the child economically self-sufficient and justify emancipation, such income might be enough to constitute a change in circumstances that warrants a reduction in child support originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 6, 2009.