New Jersey Family Law Blog

A three-judge Appellate Division panel recently ruled out binding, nonappealable arbitration as a way to settle custody and parenting time disputes. Arbitration is a favored remedy for settling disputes, but parties can’t bargain away the court’s obligation under the principle of parens patriae to ensure the best interests of children, the appeals court said.

Christine and Samih Fawzy, broke off their 14-year marriage in 2005. When their case came up for trial in Middlesex County in 2007, they decided to submit to binding arbitration on all issues, including custody and parenting time. Judge Fred Keiser Jr. warned the decision would be final and could not be appealed but for changed economic circumstances.

After four sessions, the father began to sense the arbitration was going against him, so he sought to back out and have a plenary hearing. Judge Glenn Berman, who had inherited the case, denied the request, the arbitrator made an award and the judge entered a judgment of divorce.

The appellate court in reversing the parenting provisions of the arbitration award, cited Flaherty v. Flaherty, 97 N.J. 99 (1984). Custody and visitation issues weren’t before that court, but the justices said in dicta, “as we gain experience in the arbitration of child support and custody disputes, it may become evident that a child’s best interests are as well protected by an arbitrator as a judge.” The court went on to say, [i]f so, there would be no necessity for our de novo review…[h]owever because of the Court’s parens patriae tradition, at this time we prefer to err in favor of the child’s best interest.”

Brian Paul, who sought to enforce the arbitration on the wife’s behalf, says he will seek Supreme Court review, asking the justices to balance the public policy goals of limiting litigation and protecting children.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled last month that “[c]ohabitation is not an essential requirement for a cause of action for palimony, but a marital-type relationship is required.” In Devaney V. L’Esperance, Not Reported A.2d., 2008 WL 2491976 (NJ). The Court by a 6-1 majority broke away from the precedent set by almost every state court by saying a Plaintiff need only prove that there was a “marital-type relationship.” The Court found that no such relationship existed in this case.

The Parties began dating in 1983 and L’Esperance paid for Delvaney’s college education and purchased an apartment for her in North Bergen. The two also tried unsuccessfully to have a child together. She claimed he promised to leave his wife and marry her but never did. They broke up in 2003 and he kicked her out of the apartment.

Justice John Wallace writing for the majority found that the Superior Court had correctly ruled that the Parties never held themselves out as a married couple. The Court also found that there was no proof establishing the claim that L’Esperance promised to support Delvaney.

Wallace further explained that the Court should not limit itself by requiring cohabitation and saying, “[r]ather, we opt for a more flexible approach that seeks to achieve substantial justice in light of the realities of the relationship. It is the promise to support, expressed, or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are indispensable elements to support a valid claim for palimony.”

A large majority of successful palimony claims involve cohabitation, however if a couple holds themselves out as husband and wife the fact that they do not reside together may be immaterial. Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto concurred with the opinion but expressed some concern expressing the opinion that cohabitation should at the very least be a bare minimum” requirement. He cited a California case wherein the Palimony cause of action was created. He goes on to say that “California makes the critical observation that if cohabitation were not a prerequisite to recovery, every dating relationship would have the potential for giving rise to such claims, a result no one favors.” Citing Bergen v. Wood, 14 Cal. App. 4th 854 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).

New Jersey is now the first state that does not require cohabitation as a requirement for Palimony. This decision is a step forward to ensuring fairness in long term marital-type relationships. Most of the cases where Palimony is an issue one of the spouses is either married or has the relationship as something on the side. In cases such as these cohabitation is impossible.

What if you do not have a will, you only have a few weeks left to live, and you do not want your spouse to inherit your estate?

In New Jersey, a surviving spouse has a right of election to take an elective share of one-third of the augmented estate under certain limitations and conditions spouse.

Continue reading "New Jersey: Cutting Off the Elective Share " »

Paternity testing can cost up to $500, not including attorneys fees, should you desire representation.

If the father of your child contests paternity, you should file a Paternity Complaint wherein a hearing will take place and a paternity test will be scheduled. N.J.S.A. 9:17-38 is known as the New Jersey Parentage Act.

There are certain instances where paternity is presumed.

Continue reading "New Jersey Parentage" »

Let's say you and your ex have an agreement, whether verbal or written, that you will pay to your ex $300 in child support, when according to the Guidelines, you should be paying $800. Well, this is obviously agreeable to the payor.

Your obligation will certainly change if your ex becomes a recipient of TANF, i.e. welfare. TANF stands for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

Continue reading "In New Jersey a Child Support Agreement that Deviates from the Guidelines is Superseded by the State when the Payee is a Recipient of TANF" »

In a recent New Jersey case, a mother's parental rights were reinstated after the New Jersey State Supreme Court found that DYFS failed to prove the mother was unwilling and unable to eliminate threats of harm (in this case, the presence of the child's father).

The Division of Youth and Family Services, more commonly known as DYFS, files for termination of parental rights. By clear and convincing evidence, DYFS must show the following: (1) the child's safety, health, or development is endangered by the parental relationship; (2) the parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm facing the child; (3) DYFS made reasonable efforts to provide services to help the parent; and (4) termination will not do more harm than good.

Continue reading "New Jersey: Termination of Parental Rights" »

On June 15, 2007, former Baywatch star and singer, David Hasselhoff won full and physical custody of his two teenage daughters, 14 year-old Hayley and 17 year-old Taylor-Ann.

His ex-wife, Pamela Bach, has been granted alternate weekends and on Wednesday nights for dinner.

Continue reading "Custody – David Hasselhoff" »

Hamilton v. Mamroud, N.J.Super.A.D. 2007(unpublished opinion).

The parties had one son together. They divorced agreeing to joint custody with mother having primary residence.

Eleven years after the divorce, in November of 2001, the Middlesex County Board of Social Services notified both parties that either could seek a review of child support. The mother notified the board that she was interested in the review.

Thereafter, the father was notified by the Board that it was gathering his financial information from his employer. The board filed a motion to increase support on November 7, 2003, and then again on November 25, 2003 asking the court to make the increase retroactive to November 25, 2001(the date of the original notice).

Continue reading "New Jersey Court Orders Retroactive Increase in Child Support Where Motion was Never Filed" »

On April 10, 2007, Gretchen Bonaduce filed for divorce from former “Partridge Family” child star, and now radio and TV host, Dante Daniel (“Danny”) Bonaduce after 17 years of marriage, citing irreconcilable differences.

According to the divorce papers, Gretchen is seeking legal and physical custody of their 6-year old son, Count Dante Jean-Michael V. and 12-year old daughter, Countess Isabella Michaela of the marriage, with visitation to Danny.

Continue reading "Divorce - Danny Bonaduce & Gretchen Bonaduce" »

Gruber v. Rixford, N.J.Super.A.D., 2007 (unpublished opinion).

A same sex couple purchased a townhouse together, in which title was held solely in defendant's name as was the mortgage on the property. The plaintiff expended approximately $55,000 toward the purchase of the townhouse.

After the parties broke up, the plaintiff alleged that the townhouse was a joint asset, subject to equitable distribution, giving him a 50% interest. In support of plaintiff's position, he alleged the parties had a verbal agreement that his name would be placed on the deed.

The defendant offered to pay plaintiff $93,000 as his share of the home and testified that plaintiff accepted this pay-off. Plaintiff acknowledged that the conversation took place but denied that he accepted the offer.

The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Continue reading "New Jersey Appellate Division Reverses Summary Judgment in Same Sex Equitable Distribution Case" »

Larry Birkhead, the biological father of Dannielynn, is not entirely done fighting. Debra Opri, Esq., Mr. Birkhead's former attorney alleges she was not paid $620,492.84 in fees resulting from her representation of Mr. Birkhead during his custody dispute.

On May 29, 2007, Ms. Opri allegedly filed court documents with the Los Angeles Superior Court for all of her travel expenses, expensive lavish dinners, and even for expenses associated with her husband, whom traveled with her, in addition to her “usual hourly rate” of $475.00 per hour, court filing fees, subpoena costs, deposition costs, accounting and appraisal fees, etc. Ms. Opri stated “legal services entailed hundreds of hours of work”.

Continue reading "Battle Over Nearly $630,000.00 in Counsel Fees " »

On May 4, 2007, Evanka Buttafuoco filed a divorce petition against Joey Buttafuoco citing “irreconcilable differences”. Evanka listed the couple’s assets to be “consumer debt only”.

When asked about his divorce, Mr. Buttafuoco told The Post “All I can say is two words: I’m devastated. That’s all I can say. I’m very sad.”

Joey and Evanka were married on March 5, 2007. No children are shared by the couple.

Continue reading "Divorce – Joey Buttafuoco’s Second Wife Files For Divorce" »