NJSBA Family Law Section

David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
----------------------------------------------------
57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
Hopewell, NJ 08525
Voice: 609-466-1222
Fax: 609-466-1223

David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
----------------------------------------------------
57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
Hopewell, NJ 08525
Voice: 609-466-1222
Fax: 609-466-1223


CONCLUSION
The court finds that the procedural due process guarantees of
the New Jersey Constitution and this State?s doctrine of
fundamental fairness require that delinquent child support
obligors be provided with advance notice and an opportunity to be
heard when Probation seeks to impose driver?s license suspensions
as a child support enforcement mechanism. Upon receiving such
notice, obligors may take action to avoid the suspension, or
request a hearing to demonstrate an inability to pay support at
that time due to personal hardships. Probation must also advise
affected obligors of a date certain on which the suspension will
occur. Moreover, if a license suspension may be imposed as a
remedy in an enforcement hearing, counsel must be appointed for
indigent obligors facing that consequence of magnitude. The court
also recognizes that while a balance must be struck between
protecting obligors? due process rights and effectuating the
purposes of the Act, namely, ensuring that the children of noncustodial
parents receive the financial support they need and
deserve, this balance must treat both groups fairly. The court
has endeavored to craft a holding that provides important
procedural protections to indigent obligors while not harming the
interests of their non-custodial children or placing undue burdens
on administration of the child support program in New Jersey.
186
Indeed, it is the court?s hope that, if anything, the adjustments
to the enforcement process outlined in this decision can be made
expeditiously and will create opportunities for obligors that may
ultimately enhance rather than decrease collections. Only time
will tell, however.
Recognizing the complexity and sensitivity of the enforcement
process, the court is affording Probation, DFD, and MVC 120 days
to draft new procedures governing advance notice of driver?s
license suspensions and an opportunity to be heard, if requested
by an obligor. The new procedures must also ensure that Probation
advise obligors of a date certain on which the driver?s license
suspension will occur and provide appointed counsel for any
indigent obligor facing suspension of a driver?s license at an
enforcement hearing.
The court also encourages the entities responsible for child
support enforcement to consider seeking a statutory revision from
the Legislature that would remove the provision directing
automatic suspension of driver?s licenses upon issuance of a child
support-related warrant. While not required by this decision for
the reasons set forth above, removing the linkage would allow the
current warrant process to continue without major changes. Such
an amendment would also end New Jersey?s outlier status as the
only state utilizing this linkage and would restore the procedural
protections originally afforded to obligors facing driver?s
187
license suspensions. Finally, the court sees no need to reconsider
its prior ruling denying class action status to Plaintiffs in light
of the relief afforded to them by the court.
The court will issue orders consistent with this decision,
granting partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their
procedural due process claim as well as limited relief on their
right to counsel claim. The court will deny their motion for
summary judgment as it relates to all other claims. As for the
cross-motion for summary judgment filed by the State Defendants,
that also will be granted in part and denied in part. The court
will enter judgment for the Defendants on their motion to dismiss
Alisha Grabowski as a Plaintiff for lack of standing, will maintain
the denial of class action status to Plaintiffs as previously
ordered, and will dismiss all of Plaintiffs? other claims except
for the procedural due process and right to counsel claims where
relief will be provided to Plaintiffs as set forth above and
incorporated into the order issued to Plaintiffs resolving their
motion for summary judgment. The court will schedule a case
management conference to consider any remaining concerns of the
parties and to establish a schedule governing Plaintiffs?
anticipated application for counsel fees as a partially prevailing
party since the complaint sought that relief in the event that
Plaintiffs obtained a favorable ruling from the court.

David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
----------------------------------------------------
57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
Hopewell, NJ 08525
Voice: 609-466-1222
Fax: 609-466-1223


CONCLUSION
The court finds that the procedural due process guarantees of
the New Jersey Constitution and this State?s doctrine of
fundamental fairness require that delinquent child support
obligors be provided with advance notice and an opportunity to be
heard when Probation seeks to impose driver?s license suspensions
as a child support enforcement mechanism. Upon receiving such
notice, obligors may take action to avoid the suspension, or
request a hearing to demonstrate an inability to pay support at
that time due to personal hardships. Probation must also advise
affected obligors of a date certain on which the suspension will
occur. Moreover, if a license suspension may be imposed as a
remedy in an enforcement hearing, counsel must be appointed for
indigent obligors facing that consequence of magnitude. The court
also recognizes that while a balance must be struck between
protecting obligors? due process rights and effectuating the
purposes of the Act, namely, ensuring that the children of noncustodial
parents receive the financial support they need and
deserve, this balance must treat both groups fairly. The court
has endeavored to craft a holding that provides important
procedural protections to indigent obligors while not harming the
interests of their non-custodial children or placing undue burdens
on administration of the child support program in New Jersey.
186
Indeed, it is the court?s hope that, if anything, the adjustments
to the enforcement process outlined in this decision can be made
expeditiously and will create opportunities for obligors that may
ultimately enhance rather than decrease collections. Only time
will tell, however.
Recognizing the complexity and sensitivity of the enforcement
process, the court is affording Probation, DFD, and MVC 120 days
to draft new procedures governing advance notice of driver?s
license suspensions and an opportunity to be heard, if requested
by an obligor. The new procedures must also ensure that Probation
advise obligors of a date certain on which the driver?s license
suspension will occur and provide appointed counsel for any
indigent obligor facing suspension of a driver?s license at an
enforcement hearing.
The court also encourages the entities responsible for child
support enforcement to consider seeking a statutory revision from
the Legislature that would remove the provision directing
automatic suspension of driver?s licenses upon issuance of a child
support-related warrant. While not required by this decision for
the reasons set forth above, removing the linkage would allow the
current warrant process to continue without major changes. Such
an amendment would also end New Jersey?s outlier status as the
only state utilizing this linkage and would restore the procedural
protections originally afforded to obligors facing driver?s
187
license suspensions. Finally, the court sees no need to reconsider
its prior ruling denying class action status to Plaintiffs in light
of the relief afforded to them by the court.
The court will issue orders consistent with this decision,
granting partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their
procedural due process claim as well as limited relief on their
right to counsel claim. The court will deny their motion for
summary judgment as it relates to all other claims. As for the
cross-motion for summary judgment filed by the State Defendants,
that also will be granted in part and denied in part. The court
will enter judgment for the Defendants on their motion to dismiss
Alisha Grabowski as a Plaintiff for lack of standing, will maintain
the denial of class action status to Plaintiffs as previously
ordered, and will dismiss all of Plaintiffs? other claims except
for the procedural due process and right to counsel claims where
relief will be provided to Plaintiffs as set forth above and
incorporated into the order issued to Plaintiffs resolving their
motion for summary judgment. The court will schedule a case
management conference to consider any remaining concerns of the
parties and to establish a schedule governing Plaintiffs?
anticipated application for counsel fees as a partially prevailing
party since the complaint sought that relief in the event that
Plaintiffs obtained a favorable ruling from the court.

David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
----------------------------------------------------
57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
Hopewell, NJ 08525
Voice: 609-466-1222
Fax: 609-466-1223


CONCLUSION
The court finds that the procedural due process guarantees of
the New Jersey Constitution and this State?s doctrine of
fundamental fairness require that delinquent child support
obligors be provided with advance notice and an opportunity to be
heard when Probation seeks to impose driver?s license suspensions
as a child support enforcement mechanism. Upon receiving such
notice, obligors may take action to avoid the suspension, or
request a hearing to demonstrate an inability to pay support at
that time due to personal hardships. Probation must also advise
affected obligors of a date certain on which the suspension will
occur. Moreover, if a license suspension may be imposed as a
remedy in an enforcement hearing, counsel must be appointed for
indigent obligors facing that consequence of magnitude. The court
also recognizes that while a balance must be struck between
protecting obligors? due process rights and effectuating the
purposes of the Act, namely, ensuring that the children of noncustodial
parents receive the financial support they need and
deserve, this balance must treat both groups fairly. The court
has endeavored to craft a holding that provides important
procedural protections to indigent obligors while not harming the
interests of their non-custodial children or placing undue burdens
on administration of the child support program in New Jersey.
186
Indeed, it is the court?s hope that, if anything, the adjustments
to the enforcement process outlined in this decision can be made
expeditiously and will create opportunities for obligors that may
ultimately enhance rather than decrease collections. Only time
will tell, however.
Recognizing the complexity and sensitivity of the enforcement
process, the court is affording Probation, DFD, and MVC 120 days
to draft new procedures governing advance notice of driver?s
license suspensions and an opportunity to be heard, if requested
by an obligor. The new procedures must also ensure that Probation
advise obligors of a date certain on which the driver?s license
suspension will occur and provide appointed counsel for any
indigent obligor facing suspension of a driver?s license at an
enforcement hearing.
The court also encourages the entities responsible for child
support enforcement to consider seeking a statutory revision from
the Legislature that would remove the provision directing
automatic suspension of driver?s licenses upon issuance of a child
support-related warrant. While not required by this decision for
the reasons set forth above, removing the linkage would allow the
current warrant process to continue without major changes. Such
an amendment would also end New Jersey?s outlier status as the
only state utilizing this linkage and would restore the procedural
protections originally afforded to obligors facing driver?s
187
license suspensions. Finally, the court sees no need to reconsider
its prior ruling denying class action status to Plaintiffs in light
of the relief afforded to them by the court.
The court will issue orders consistent with this decision,
granting partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their
procedural due process claim as well as limited relief on their
right to counsel claim. The court will deny their motion for
summary judgment as it relates to all other claims. As for the
cross-motion for summary judgment filed by the State Defendants,
that also will be granted in part and denied in part. The court
will enter judgment for the Defendants on their motion to dismiss
Alisha Grabowski as a Plaintiff for lack of standing, will maintain
the denial of class action status to Plaintiffs as previously
ordered, and will dismiss all of Plaintiffs? other claims except
for the procedural due process and right to counsel claims where
relief will be provided to Plaintiffs as set forth above and
incorporated into the order issued to Plaintiffs resolving their
motion for summary judgment. The court will schedule a case
management conference to consider any remaining concerns of the
parties and to establish a schedule governing Plaintiffs?
anticipated application for counsel fees as a partially prevailing
party since the complaint sought that relief in the event that
Plaintiffs obtained a favorable ruling from the court.

David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
----------------------------------------------------
57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
Hopewell, NJ 08525
Voice: 609-466-1222
Fax: 609-466-1223


CONCLUSION
The court finds that the procedural due process guarantees of
the New Jersey Constitution and this State?s doctrine of
fundamental fairness require that delinquent child support
obligors be provided with advance notice and an opportunity to be
heard when Probation seeks to impose driver?s license suspensions
as a child support enforcement mechanism. Upon receiving such
notice, obligors may take action to avoid the suspension, or
request a hearing to demonstrate an inability to pay support at
that time due to personal hardships. Probation must also advise
affected obligors of a date certain on which the suspension will
occur. Moreover, if a license suspension may be imposed as a
remedy in an enforcement hearing, counsel must be appointed for
indigent obligors facing that consequence of magnitude. The court
also recognizes that while a balance must be struck between
protecting obligors? due process rights and effectuating the
purposes of the Act, namely, ensuring that the children of noncustodial
parents receive the financial support they need and
deserve, this balance must treat both groups fairly. The court
has endeavored to craft a holding that provides important
procedural protections to indigent obligors while not harming the
interests of their non-custodial children or placing undue burdens
on administration of the child support program in New Jersey.
186
Indeed, it is the court?s hope that, if anything, the adjustments
to the enforcement process outlined in this decision can be made
expeditiously and will create opportunities for obligors that may
ultimately enhance rather than decrease collections. Only time
will tell, however.
Recognizing the complexity and sensitivity of the enforcement
process, the court is affording Probation, DFD, and MVC 120 days
to draft new procedures governing advance notice of driver?s
license suspensions and an opportunity to be heard, if requested
by an obligor. The new procedures must also ensure that Probation
advise obligors of a date certain on which the driver?s license
suspension will occur and provide appointed counsel for any
indigent obligor facing suspension of a driver?s license at an
enforcement hearing.
The court also encourages the entities responsible for child
support enforcement to consider seeking a statutory revision from
the Legislature that would remove the provision directing
automatic suspension of driver?s licenses upon issuance of a child
support-related warrant. While not required by this decision for
the reasons set forth above, removing the linkage would allow the
current warrant process to continue without major changes. Such
an amendment would also end New Jersey?s outlier status as the
only state utilizing this linkage and would restore the procedural
protections originally afforded to obligors facing driver?s
187
license suspensions. Finally, the court sees no need to reconsider
its prior ruling denying class action status to Plaintiffs in light
of the relief afforded to them by the court.
The court will issue orders consistent with this decision,
granting partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their
procedural due process claim as well as limited relief on their
right to counsel claim. The court will deny their motion for
summary judgment as it relates to all other claims. As for the
cross-motion for summary judgment filed by the State Defendants,
that also will be granted in part and denied in part. The court
will enter judgment for the Defendants on their motion to dismiss
Alisha Grabowski as a Plaintiff for lack of standing, will maintain
the denial of class action status to Plaintiffs as previously
ordered, and will dismiss all of Plaintiffs? other claims except
for the procedural due process and right to counsel claims where
relief will be provided to Plaintiffs as set forth above and
incorporated into the order issued to Plaintiffs resolving their
motion for summary judgment. The court will schedule a case
management conference to consider any remaining concerns of the
parties and to establish a schedule governing Plaintiffs?
anticipated application for counsel fees as a partially prevailing
party since the complaint sought that relief in the event that
Plaintiffs obtained a favorable ruling from the court.

David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
----------------------------------------------------
57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
Hopewell, NJ 08525
Voice: 609-466-1222
Fax: 609-466-1223


CONCLUSION
The court finds that the procedural due process guarantees of
the New Jersey Constitution and this State?s doctrine of
fundamental fairness require that delinquent child support
obligors be provided with advance notice and an opportunity to be
heard when Probation seeks to impose driver?s license suspensions
as a child support enforcement mechanism. Upon receiving such
notice, obligors may take action to avoid the suspension, or
request a hearing to demonstrate an inability to pay support at
that time due to personal hardships. Probation must also advise
affected obligors of a date certain on which the suspension will
occur. Moreover, if a license suspension may be imposed as a
remedy in an enforcement hearing, counsel must be appointed for
indigent obligors facing that consequence of magnitude. The court
also recognizes that while a balance must be struck between
protecting obligors? due process rights and effectuating the
purposes of the Act, namely, ensuring that the children of noncustodial
parents receive the financial support they need and
deserve, this balance must treat both groups fairly. The court
has endeavored to craft a holding that provides important
procedural protections to indigent obligors while not harming the
interests of their non-custodial children or placing undue burdens
on administration of the child support program in New Jersey.
186
Indeed, it is the court?s hope that, if anything, the adjustments
to the enforcement process outlined in this decision can be made
expeditiously and will create opportunities for obligors that may
ultimately enhance rather than decrease collections. Only time
will tell, however.
Recognizing the complexity and sensitivity of the enforcement
process, the court is affording Probation, DFD, and MVC 120 days
to draft new procedures governing advance notice of driver?s
license suspensions and an opportunity to be heard, if requested
by an obligor. The new procedures must also ensure that Probation
advise obligors of a date certain on which the driver?s license
suspension will occur and provide appointed counsel for any
indigent obligor facing suspension of a driver?s license at an
enforcement hearing.
The court also encourages the entities responsible for child
support enforcement to consider seeking a statutory revision from
the Legislature that would remove the provision directing
automatic suspension of driver?s licenses upon issuance of a child
support-related warrant. While not required by this decision for
the reasons set forth above, removing the linkage would allow the
current warrant process to continue without major changes. Such
an amendment would also end New Jersey?s outlier status as the
only state utilizing this linkage and would restore the procedural
protections originally afforded to obligors facing driver?s
187
license suspensions. Finally, the court sees no need to reconsider
its prior ruling denying class action status to Plaintiffs in light
of the relief afforded to them by the court.
The court will issue orders consistent with this decision,
granting partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their
procedural due process claim as well as limited relief on their
right to counsel claim. The court will deny their motion for
summary judgment as it relates to all other claims. As for the
cross-motion for summary judgment filed by the State Defendants,
that also will be granted in part and denied in part. The court
will enter judgment for the Defendants on their motion to dismiss
Alisha Grabowski as a Plaintiff for lack of standing, will maintain
the denial of class action status to Plaintiffs as previously
ordered, and will dismiss all of Plaintiffs? other claims except
for the procedural due process and right to counsel claims where
relief will be provided to Plaintiffs as set forth above and
incorporated into the order issued to Plaintiffs resolving their
motion for summary judgment. The court will schedule a case
management conference to consider any remaining concerns of the
parties and to establish a schedule governing Plaintiffs?
anticipated application for counsel fees as a partially prevailing
party since the complaint sought that relief in the event that
Plaintiffs obtained a favorable ruling from the court.

David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
----------------------------------------------------
57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
Hopewell, NJ 08525
Voice: 609-466-1222
Fax: 609-466-1223

David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
----------------------------------------------------
57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
Hopewell, NJ 08525
Voice: 609-466-1222
Fax: 609-466-1223


CONCLUSION
The court finds that the procedural due process guarantees of
the New Jersey Constitution and this State?s doctrine of
fundamental fairness require that delinquent child support
obligors be provided with advance notice and an opportunity to be
heard when Probation seeks to impose driver?s license suspensions
as a child support enforcement mechanism. Upon receiving such
notice, obligors may take action to avoid the suspension, or
request a hearing to demonstrate an inability to pay support at
that time due to personal hardships. Probation must also advise
affected obligors of a date certain on which the suspension will
occur. Moreover, if a license suspension may be imposed as a
remedy in an enforcement hearing, counsel must be appointed for
indigent obligors facing that consequence of magnitude. The court
also recognizes that while a balance must be struck between
protecting obligors? due process rights and effectuating the
purposes of the Act, namely, ensuring that the children of noncustodial
parents receive the financial support they need and
deserve, this balance must treat both groups fairly. The court
has endeavored to craft a holding that provides important
procedural protections to indigent obligors while not harming the
interests of their non-custodial children or placing undue burdens
on administration of the child support program in New Jersey.
186
Indeed, it is the court?s hope that, if anything, the adjustments
to the enforcement process outlined in this decision can be made
expeditiously and will create opportunities for obligors that may
ultimately enhance rather than decrease collections. Only time
will tell, however.
Recognizing the complexity and sensitivity of the enforcement
process, the court is affording Probation, DFD, and MVC 120 days
to draft new procedures governing advance notice of driver?s
license suspensions and an opportunity to be heard, if requested
by an obligor. The new procedures must also ensure that Probation
advise obligors of a date certain on which the driver?s license
suspension will occur and provide appointed counsel for any
indigent obligor facing suspension of a driver?s license at an
enforcement hearing.
The court also encourages the entities responsible for child
support enforcement to consider seeking a statutory revision from
the Legislature that would remove the provision directing
automatic suspension of driver?s licenses upon issuance of a child
support-related warrant. While not required by this decision for
the reasons set forth above, removing the linkage would allow the
current warrant process to continue without major changes. Such
an amendment would also end New Jersey?s outlier status as the
only state utilizing this linkage and would restore the procedural
protections originally afforded to obligors facing driver?s
187
license suspensions. Finally, the court sees no need to reconsider
its prior ruling denying class action status to Plaintiffs in light
of the relief afforded to them by the court.
The court will issue orders consistent with this decision,
granting partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their
procedural due process claim as well as limited relief on their
right to counsel claim. The court will deny their motion for
summary judgment as it relates to all other claims. As for the
cross-motion for summary judgment filed by the State Defendants,
that also will be granted in part and denied in part. The court
will enter judgment for the Defendants on their motion to dismiss
Alisha Grabowski as a Plaintiff for lack of standing, will maintain
the denial of class action status to Plaintiffs as previously
ordered, and will dismiss all of Plaintiffs? other claims except
for the procedural due process and right to counsel claims where
relief will be provided to Plaintiffs as set forth above and
incorporated into the order issued to Plaintiffs resolving their
motion for summary judgment. The court will schedule a case
management conference to consider any remaining concerns of the
parties and to establish a schedule governing Plaintiffs?
anticipated application for counsel fees as a partially prevailing
party since the complaint sought that relief in the event that
Plaintiffs obtained a favorable ruling from the court.