NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only

  • 1.  THANK YOU!

    Posted 01-14-2014 11:09 AM

    We also hold that an attorney-prepared pleading should not have been rejected by the Family Part division manager merely because it did not use the standardized form approved by the AOC for pro se litigants. This approach displays a disrespect for the work-product of professionally trained and highly experienced family law attorneys.



    -------------------------------------------
    Andrew Bestafka Esq.
    Freehold NJ
    (732)898-2378 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (732)898-2378 FREE  end_of_the_skype_highlighting

    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE:THANK YOU!

    Posted 01-14-2014 12:42 PM
      |   view attached
    Amen to that Thank You!  It deserves a link to the entire case:

    A copy should be sent to all the Family Division / Non-dissolution team members!  Also great to see the case was published!

    The AOC ignored us (surprise, surprise...), perhaps the Appellate Division will be listened to?


    As a matter of sound principles of judicial case management and consistent with rudimentary notions of due process, a verified complaint prepared by an attorney, seeking grandparent visitation as the only form of relief, should not be rejected by the Family Part as facially deficient for filing, merely because it was not presented using a standardized form complaint intended to be used primarily by pro se litigants as a means of facilitating their access to the court. Stated differently, a litigant should not be penalized for retaining an experienced family law attorney to present their case to the court in the form of a professionally drafted pleading.

    As a matter of basic respect to the legal profession, we must operate under the presumption that a complaint prepared by an attorney contains a far more comprehensive presentation of the facts and legal principles involved in a case than a standardized form document crafted to identify, in a generic fashion, the nature of the family action at issue by having a pro se litigant put a checkmark in or write a line across the box next to the subcategory "grandparent visitation." At the very least, an attorney-drafted pleading should be treated no differently than one prepared by a pro se litigant.

    Unfortunately, what occurred here demonstrates that, at least at the time and in the vicinage this case was filed, attorney-prepared complaints were routinely rejected as a matter of policy....


    -------------------------------------------
    - Dave

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






    Attachment(s)

    pdf
    FDComplaints.pdf   202 KB 1 version
    Original Message


  • 3.  RE:THANK YOU!

    Posted 01-14-2014 12:43 PM
    (Attempt #2 - no idea why link didn't come through)

    Amen to that Thank You!  It deserves a link to the entire case:

    http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a2338-12.pdf



    -------------------------------------------
    - Dave

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






    Original Message