Dave,
It's an older case, but Abrams (f/k/a Lombardo) v. Lombardo, A-2673-07T1, [decided 10/7/08] addressed the issue where a kid who was a slacker (registered but failed to attend classes) was deemed by the trial court to be "unemancipated." The App Div spends most of the opinion criticizing the trial judge but there is some good language in there for emancipation based on kid's failure to expend serious efforts on his education.
-------------------------------------------
Lisa M. Radell, Esq.
207 South Main Street
Cape May Court House, NJ 08210
Phone (609) 465-9910
Fax (609) 465-9920
E-Mail
[email protected] -------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 10-27-2014 14:14
From: Ralph Tawil
Subject: Strong emancipation case law language
Ksiezopolski, f/k/a Vaz v Vaz, A-1605-11T4, decided March 7, 2013 might help.
-------------------------------------------
Ralph Tawil Esq.
West Long Branch NJ
(732)229-4848
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 10-27-2014 13:30
From: David Perry Davis
Subject: Strong emancipation case law language
I have a plenary tomorrow on emancipation and need a quick case cite if anyone knows it off the top of their head.
In it, the trial court denied an application for emancipation of a child who had graduated from college, but was still living at home and not really working. The trial court declined to emancipate and the Appellate Division reversed (it may have been unpublished), saying that even though the child hadn't really moved beyond the sphere of parental influence and become financially independent, he wasn't a full time student and wasn't disabled and therefore the custodial parent hadn't met her burden of showing she was entitled to continuing child support. I'm not sure of whether it was in connection with that case or not, but the App Div said that, if a child isn't disabled or a full time student, there have to be extraordinary circumstances (or words to that effect). A judge cited the case to me a while back, but I can't locate my notes - it was very good, strong language.
Anyone know the case? I'm looking for the strongest language possible that would support an argument that there is a heavy burden on a parent of a 19 year old who is looking to continue child support when the "child" isn't disabled per the SSD or a full-time student.
In my case, the "child" stopped attending high school full time in June 2013 (turned 18 in April 2013). He couldn't graduate with his class as he had missed too many days and didn't have sufficient credits. The child admitted in writing that he plays video games all night and then is too tired to function. He then attended High School part-time fall 2013 - June 2014. He is not now a student, but continues to live at home. The child did have an IEP in High School and some psychological issues, but nothing rising to the level of a disability.
Thanks,
-------------------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
-------------------------------------------