NJSBA Family Law Section

Just got an NJLJ news flash.

This is gonna be a big fight.

Hanan

------------------------------
Hanan Isaacs Esq.
Kingston NJ
(609)683-7400
------------------------------

Hanan -
        Do you have the bill number?
        There was a bill floating that would have ended CS for probation purposes at age 19 - meaning that the probation account and garnishments would terminate at 19 unless the custodial parent moved to continue it. The legal burden has always been on the parent seeking to continue support after age 18, but administratively, the probation account stayed open until the payor took action (either via motion or requesting hearing through probation). NJ is 1 of only 2 states that worked this way, and it hurts NJ's collection percentage, which affects federal funding, since a lot of payors would stop paying if the child is 18 and out of high school and not in college. This takes resources (you know, like automatic DL suspension if the payor had been put on 2 week warrant status 10 years earlier and it was still in place).  The bottom line is that it was an administrative change.
        If this bill is different, yeah, that'd be a problem. Both sides would complain - the NJ SCT has said that a "child" being 18 and neither a f/t student nor disabled ends the duty of a parent to provide support, so if the legislature is trying up that to 19, there would be either an appeal or maybe a facial challenge as soon as it's signed.  I don't think the legislature can pick 19 (or 25 or 35) to end the duty to support an adult. On the other hand, if it's seeking to end all CS at 19 regardless of student / disabled status (although that would bring NJ in line with the way 43 other states do it), I think there would also be a challenge in light of the "public policy" from Newburgh et al.

________________________
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
________________________

NJ Law Journal article: http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202733052334/NJ-Senate-Approves-Changes-to-Child-Support-Law?mcode=1202615653063

Text of Bill S1046: https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S1046/2014

---
Andrew M. Shaw
Associate Attorney

DeTommaso Law Group, LLC
73 Grove Street
Somerville, NJ 08876

Phone: (908) 595-0340
Fax: (908) 595-0343

This message and any attached documents are a confidential communication for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please refrain from disseminating this information in any way and notify me immediately either by responding to this message or by phone at the number listed above. Afterward, please erase the message and any attachments.

If you are not a current client of the DeTommaso Law Group, LLC, this message is not intended to constitute legal advice or to establish an attorney-client relationship. If you have not signed a retainer with this firm, we are not your lawyers and we do not represent you in any capacity.


Original Message------

Hanan -
        Do you have the bill number?
        There was a bill floating that would have ended CS for probation purposes at age 19 - meaning that the probation account and garnishments would terminate at 19 unless the custodial parent moved to continue it. The legal burden has always been on the parent seeking to continue support after age 18, but administratively, the probation account stayed open until the payor took action (either via motion or requesting hearing through probation). NJ is 1 of only 2 states that worked this way, and it hurts NJ's collection percentage, which affects federal funding, since a lot of payors would stop paying if the child is 18 and out of high school and not in college. This takes resources (you know, like automatic DL suspension if the payor had been put on 2 week warrant status 10 years earlier and it was still in place).  The bottom line is that it was an administrative change.
        If this bill is different, yeah, that'd be a problem. Both sides would complain - the NJ SCT has said that a "child" being 18 and neither a f/t student nor disabled ends the duty of a parent to provide support, so if the legislature is trying up that to 19, there would be either an appeal or maybe a facial challenge as soon as it's signed.  I don't think the legislature can pick 19 (or 25 or 35) to end the duty to support an adult. On the other hand, if it's seeking to end all CS at 19 regardless of student / disabled status (although that would bring NJ in line with the way 43 other states do it), I think there would also be a challenge in light of the "public policy" from Newburgh et al.

________________________
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
________________________

My apologies, here's a more authoritative source for the text of the bill: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=S1046

Please note that there were two reprints, and the second does not seem to be listed by my original source. The NJ Legislature's website, linked above, has both in addition to the floor statement and other interesting information.

---
Andrew M. Shaw
Associate Attorney

DeTommaso Law Group, LLC
73 Grove Street
Somerville, NJ 08876

Phone: (908) 595-0340
Fax: (908) 595-0343

This message and any attached documents are a confidential communication for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please refrain from disseminating this information in any way and notify me immediately either by responding to this message or by phone at the number listed above. Afterward, please erase the message and any attachments.

If you are not a current client of the DeTommaso Law Group, LLC, this message is not intended to constitute legal advice or to establish an attorney-client relationship. If you have not signed a retainer with this firm, we are not your lawyers and we do not represent you in any capacity.


Original Message------

NJ Law Journal article: http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202733052334/NJ-Senate-Approves-Changes-to-Child-Support-Law?mcode=1202615653063

Text of Bill S1046: https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S1046/2014

---
Andrew M. Shaw
Associate Attorney

DeTommaso Law Group, LLC
73 Grove Street
Somerville, NJ 08876

Phone: (908) 595-0340
Fax: (908) 595-0343

This message and any attached documents are a confidential communication for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please refrain from disseminating this information in any way and notify me immediately either by responding to this message or by phone at the number listed above. Afterward, please erase the message and any attachments.

If you are not a current client of the DeTommaso Law Group, LLC, this message is not intended to constitute legal advice or to establish an attorney-client relationship. If you have not signed a retainer with this firm, we are not your lawyers and we do not represent you in any capacity.

I don't think this will go anywhere. Last time it happened in the early to mid-90's, it was passed unanimously, then was stopped in its tracks along with some rhetoric that it was likely to result in a welfare state, or words to that effect.

------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Metuchen NJ
(732)603-8585
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-24-2015 15:00
From: Hanan Isaacs
Subject: NJ Senate Approves Bill Automatically Terminating Child Support at Age 19, Prospectively Only

Just got an NJLJ news flash.

This is gonna be a big fight.

Hanan

------------------------------
Hanan Isaacs Esq.
Kingston NJ
(609)683-7400
------------------------------

        Wait... this is Shirley Turner's bill, but it is not saying what was represented earlier.  It does continue the status quo as far as continuing support as a result of student or disability status --

     b.    A parent or guardian may submit a written request to the court with supporting documentation, including a projected future date when support will terminate, if appropriate, seeking the continuation of child support beyond 19 years of age in the following circumstances:
     (1)   the child is still enrolled in high school or other secondary educational program;
     (2)   the child is participating full-time in a post-secondary education program;
     (3)   the child has a physical or mental disability that existed prior to the child reaching the age of 19 and requires continued support; or
     (4)   other exceptional circumstances as may be approved by the court.

        But it certainly does make it look like they're raising the age for emancipation to 19 across the board .... so 18 and out of High School and neither disabled nor a full-time student would result in a child support order continuing? Even if the child graduates from HS at 17 and wants to sit around for a year and a half?  This is not what I'd heard discussed earlier where it was primarily an adminstrative change so probation could shut down cases more easily, this would be a huge substantive change, meaning that a parent has to support a non-disabled, non-full-time student until 19?
        As I said earlier... Why 19? Why not 35? When the "child" becomes an adult and isn't a f/t student (etc) how would this be justified?
        Am I reading this wrong?

---------------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
---------------------------------------

Maybe I am reading it wrong - all the bill appears to address is that child support will terminate automatically (at 19 unless the custodial parent moves to continue it) - that doesn't prevent a parent of an 18 year old who isn't in school or disabled from applying to end it earlier as per current law...?


a.  Unless otherwise provided in a court order or judgment, the obligation to pay child support shall terminate by operation of law without order by the court on the date that a child who is less than 19 years of age marries, dies, or enters the military service.  A child support obligation shall also terminate by operation of law without order by the court when a child reaches 19 years of age unless... 

------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
------------------------------

Hello Family Law Section members,

Following is information on this bill, including a link the NJSBA position statement in opposition:

3.   S-1046 (Turner) which concerns alterations in child support obligations in response to changes to the status of a supported child. 

Originating Section/Committee: Family Law Section

NJSBA Position Statement (PDF)

Have a great weekend all!

Barb

------------------------------
Barbara Straczynski
Director of New Media and Promotions
New Jersey State Bar Association
New Brunswick NJ
(732) 937-7524
[email protected]
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-24-2015 16:55
From: David Perry Davis
Subject: NJ Senate Approves Bill Automatically Terminating Child Support at Age 19, Prospectively Only

Maybe I am reading it wrong - all the bill appears to address is that child support will terminate automatically (at 19 unless the custodial parent moves to continue it) - that doesn't prevent a parent of an 18 year old who isn't in school or disabled from applying to end it earlier as per current law...?


a.  Unless otherwise provided in a court order or judgment, the obligation to pay child support shall terminate by operation of law without order by the court on the date that a child who is less than 19 years of age marries, dies, or enters the military service.  A child support obligation shall also terminate by operation of law without order by the court when a child reaches 19 years of age unless... 

------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
------------------------------

Barbara -

Thanks. I'm still asking, but at least one statutory interpretation whiz says that yes, my initial take was wrong. The bill wouldn't change the law as far as emancipating an 18 year old who isn't in school nor disabled, it would just make it happen automatically at 19 if no other order is issued.

The bill was supported by the Family Law Executive Committee Legislation Committee (it was discussed during their "open" event a few months ago). I am confused as to why the NJSBA would then oppose it.  The opposition statement is also, respectfully, not accurate. It says presumptively closing a case at 19 would "unreasonably prejudices the recipient, who is usually the custodial parent, by shifting the burden to the payee to prove a right to continue the child support instead of leaving the burden on the payor to demonstrate why his/her obligation should be terminated."  This is not the law. The presumption under existing law (Newburgh et al) is that support ends at 18, and the burden is on the custodial parent to continue it. And, if it's put to a discussion - when a court finds a child emancipated, the termination is presumptively effective at an earlier date, which puts a burden on a custodial parent to repay post-emancipation support.

More importantly, what was the discussion process before the opposition stance was taken? Was there a vote beyond the one taken at the FLEC meeting? If the NJSBA is speaking on behalf of its members, what was the process that lead to this opposition? It's probably just a matter of my not knowing where to look on the website, but how can we (Family Law practitioners) be kept advised as to positions the NJSBA is going to assert on Family Law issues? It wouldn't seem to pose much of a technology challenge to have issues like this put to a vote (e.g., put in member number and do an online poll / voting). Is there a separate discussion thread where bills are discussed?

Thanks

------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
------------------------------

Hello David,

Bills where the NJSBA Board of Trustees have taken a position on legislation are posted on njsba.com under Resources > Government Affairs > NJSBA Position Statements

http://www.njsba.com/resources/gov-affairs/position-statements-1/index.html

Also under the choices for Government Affairs, a specific page was established for Legislative Alert: Alimony Legislation

http://www.njsba.com/resources/gov-affairs/legislative-alert-alimony-legislation.html

You can find all the information you need about the NJSBA Legislative Policy-Making Process under the tab Legislative Policy

http://www.njsba.com/resources/gov-affairs/legislative-policy/index.html

All the best,
Barb

------------------------------
Barbara Straczynski
Director of New Media and Promotions
New Jersey State Bar Association
New Brunswick NJ
(732) 937-7524
[email protected]
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-24-2015 18:16
From: David Perry Davis
Subject: NJ Senate Approves Bill Automatically Terminating Child Support at Age 19, Prospectively Only

Barbara -

Thanks. I'm still asking, but at least one statutory interpretation whiz says that yes, my initial take was wrong. The bill wouldn't change the law as far as emancipating an 18 year old who isn't in school nor disabled, it would just make it happen automatically at 19 if no other order is issued.

The bill was supported by the Family Law Executive Committee Legislation Committee (it was discussed during their "open" event a few months ago). I am confused as to why the NJSBA would then oppose it.  The opposition statement is also, respectfully, not accurate. It says presumptively closing a case at 19 would "unreasonably prejudices the recipient, who is usually the custodial parent, by shifting the burden to the payee to prove a right to continue the child support instead of leaving the burden on the payor to demonstrate why his/her obligation should be terminated."  This is not the law. The presumption under existing law (Newburgh et al) is that support ends at 18, and the burden is on the custodial parent to continue it. And, if it's put to a discussion - when a court finds a child emancipated, the termination is presumptively effective at an earlier date, which puts a burden on a custodial parent to repay post-emancipation support.

More importantly, what was the discussion process before the opposition stance was taken? Was there a vote beyond the one taken at the FLEC meeting? If the NJSBA is speaking on behalf of its members, what was the process that lead to this opposition? It's probably just a matter of my not knowing where to look on the website, but how can we (Family Law practitioners) be kept advised as to positions the NJSBA is going to assert on Family Law issues? It wouldn't seem to pose much of a technology challenge to have issues like this put to a vote (e.g., put in member number and do an online poll / voting). Is there a separate discussion thread where bills are discussed?

Thanks

------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
------------------------------