3 1/2 points:
1. The alimony reform movement in NJ is a direct response to Hughes v Hughes and while I have the utmost respect for Judge Drier and all of his contributions to the court system, telling trial judges that they must consider permanent alimony at the end of a 10 year marriage was a monumental change that went too far. The public is now attempting to reign in the discretion given the court system as a result of Hughes, especially since such alimony guidelines are in place elsewhere.
2. The federal government directed the creation of child support guidelines years ago, because of inconsistent decisions governing the support of children. At the time, many were afraid that such a system would hamstring the judges and the lawyers to be creative and to address the specific needs of a particular family. The initial guidelines put in place in NJ actually treated the noncustodial parent who spent time with his children unfairly since there was no differentiation between no overnight time and 49% of the overnights - penalizing the parent who spent more time with his children by not adjusting the credits due him. That glitch was later addressed and corrected by the creation of separate parenting worksheets based on overnight time.
Similarly, years ago, we had "Roberts Hearings" to deal with settings where one party sought the removal of the other party in a divorce setting because of threats, etc. The legislature then created the Domestic violence laws and there was great fear that it would be misused for tactical gain by one party against the other in a divorce by control of the marital home. Yet, since then, there have been s series a opinions out of the Appellate and Supreme courts addressing the "intent" of the domestic violence laws and admonishing trial courts for granting final orders where domestic violence claims were suspect. Those decisions have greatly helped to ensure that the DV laws are not abused by litigants seeking advantage in their divorce matters.
3. And the biggest issue ( and the elephant in the room) is the lack of consistency in rulings on alimony claims from judge to judge and from county to county - much of which I blame on the judiciary, for permitting a lawyer with no family law background or experience to leave his private practice ( i.e. real estate, corp., criminal law, etc) and within 30 days ( during which time he is "observing" other family law judges) start rulings on alimony claims, etc.
Most if not all of us feel that such a system is not fair to the new judge nor to the litigants and is a breeding ground for error. Again, when we ( as lawyers ) support this type of system, than we cannot claim outrage when the public reacts negatively to decisions rendered by judges with no experience or background in family law. The same applies when a judge is transferred from another section of the court system to the family part.
Years ago, I was asked to accompany a judge from Japan, observing the Union County ESP program with the intent of taking back information learned to help the Japanese family court system. After spending about 5 1/2 hours with him that day, I concluded that our judiciary had as much to learn about how to select judges for the superior court as the Japanese system had to learn about family law.
In Japan, before being given a robe, a candidate was required to attend a specific judiciary education program and required to pass specific proficiency requirements in the various areas of their court system and before being able to transfer to another area of the court system, he again had to take and pass specific educational testing's to ensure his working knowledge of that area of law; none of which requirements are imposed by our system.
Again, my remarks are not intended as criticism of new judges but a criticism of a judicial system that allows an individual to "learn as he goes" as if everything he does in the family court system is merely common sense and readily apparent. What is clear to me is that the public no longer has faith in the breath of discretion granted the legal system and it has decided to pull back on the reigns. My sense is that alimony reform is coming to NJ just like same sex marriage was inevitable and presumably over the course of the next several years, the alimony reform laws will be tweaked to better address unusual or unique fact pattern cases.
-------------------------------------------
Richard Diamond Esq.
Millburn NJ
(973)379-9292
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 10-22-2013 22:55
From: Jeralyn Lawrence
Subject: Huffington Post blog - "Alimony Reform Laws Focus on the Exception to the Rule and to the Detriment of the American Family
I think most of us realize that no two marriages are the same and that cases must be settled or tried and decided based on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Formulas may appear to be an easy, quick fix but that doesn't make them fair or right. A fair and balanced study commission seems to be the right answer for both sides of this issue. The Assembly has passed a resolution calling for same. Hopefully, the Senate will follow suit. Name calling each other, or placing us in one box or the other, is not fair, nice or particularly helpful. One thing about us divorce lawyers (other than being extremely hard working :) ) we all represent both sides here -- both the payor and the payee. This requires us to be fair and intellectually honest as in the morning, we may be representing the spouse that needs alimony and in the afternoon, representing the side that has to pay it. We know both sides of the argument and need the law to be applied carefully, thoughtfully and respectfully.
-------------------------------------------
Jeralyn Lawrence Esq.
Bridgewater NJ
(908) 722-0700
-------------------------------------------