UPDATE: The state's opposition and cross motion for summary judgment was filed today, July 1, 2016. A copy is on the website http://dpdlaw.com/kavadas.htm (top entry, under "New --->"). As always, any and all comments, thoughts, suggestions (on or off the record) are welcomed and highly valued and appreciated.
I'm about halfway done with their brief, and would say I'm cautiously optimistic that the State has thus far not rebutted the central premise / argument. Instead, they are urging that the possibility that an obligor could seek modification should negate the due process requirement that a DL cannot be suspended without a specific hearing (admitting this never occurs under the current process). This is legally unsound and ignores that every single plaintiff did seek modification and it was denied (with a judge telling Andreana Kavadas, for example, that having a breastfeeding infant and no daycare was no basis for modification). The question of whether modification is appropriate cannot be interchanged with whether coercive enforcement is appropriate and does not provide the Constitutionally required due process before a DL is suspended (or so I hope and believe the law requires).
The Attorney General continues to point to other state's statutes that withstood challenge - without commenting none of those states (that NO state) automatically suspends a DL as New Jersey does.
Did I mention -- any and all comments, thoughts, suggestions (on or off the record) are welcomed and highly valued and appreciated.
Reply brief is due July 22. Oral argument is August 23.
David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro ----------------------------------------------------
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222 o to Unsubscribe.