Six Updates In Family Law
Jun 2, 2023 | Written by: | Share
Following are synopses of six recently published trial court opinions[1]. These are all family law decisions that address a myriad of topics throughout New Jersey.
1. M.K. v. T.K: In this Monmouth County case, the only issues that were not resolved were (i) the enforceability of a child support order entered in the District of Loughre, Ireland (Ireland order) and its impact on child support arrears; and (ii) each party’s respective request for counsel fees.
In late 2015, the defendant filed a motion to enforce the child support obligation. Although the plaintiff was then residing in Ireland, he retained an attorney in the United States and filed a cross-motion seeking to reduce alimony. Around the same time, in November 2015, the Monmouth County Probation Division commenced proceedings for the international enforcement of the plaintiff’s child support obligation in Ireland, where he was then living. The plaintiff returned to the United States on February 2, 2019, on a visa. He did not immediately notify the defendant or the children of his return. One year later, on February 13, 2020, the plaintiff filed an instant motion seeking, among other requested relief, to have the court enforce the Ireland order, establish child support at the rate of $556.20 per month, and recalculate arrears (which continued to accrue at the rate of $1,700 per month despite the Ireland order, and amounted to $55,889 according to Probation records). Conversely, the defendant sought to have the Ireland order declared null and void and to require the plaintiff to fully pay all arrears owed.
The question was whether Ireland had authority to modify the U.S. Orders and the court determined it did not. This decision provides an excellent and thorough analysis of the law regarding the Hague Convention, UIFSA[2] and reciprocity[3]. UIFSA provides uniform rules for the enforcement of family support orders and implementation of the Hague Convention at the state level. Each state and territory in the United States has adopted UIFSA in accordance with federal mandates. See 42 U.S.C. § 666(f).
2. K.A. v. F.A.: In another Monmouth County case, the court reviewed a question of first impression: may a child support obligation be modified retroactively prior to the date of application where the substantial, permanent change in circumstances is an adult adoption that terminated the obligor’s parental rights? For reasons stated therein, the court concluded that N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.23a’s ban on retroactive modification to child support does not bar modification, or even termination, of child support retroactive to the date of the adult adoption.
3. J.R. v. A.R.: This case presented a question of first impression in New Jersey regarding a threshold inquiry to the application of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Specifically, this case required the court to determine whether an accession to the Convention by the child's country of habitual residence—the Philippines—mandated application of the Convention where the United States has not accepted that accession. For reasons set forth, the court answered the question in the negative. Accordingly, because the United States has not accepted the Philippines' accession to the Convention, the alleged wrongful removal at issue was not subject to the Convention's prompt return protocols. Accordingly, in view of the Convention's plain language, not to mention analogous federal and state precedent, and scholarly consensus, the court concluded that because the United States has not accepted the Philippines accession to the Convention in accordance with Article 38, the court could not grant J.R. his requested relief.
4. In the Matter of an Adoption of a Child by G.A.S., and M.A.S.: This matter came before the court by way of a petition filed by G.A.S. and M.A.S., a same-sex couple, seeking a Judgment of Adoption pursuant to the streamlined requirements set forth in L. 2019, c. 323, codified as N.J.S.A. 9:17-69 to -71 (the Legal Parentage Act or LPA), effective April 1, 2020. This opinion examined groundbreaking changes in the New Jersey adoption process for same-sex couples. This new statutory enactment reflects the extraordinary steps our State is taking to make New Jersey a welcoming and accepting place for same-sex couples. The new law also reflects societal support and acceptance for same-sex marriages and adoptions. The LPA streamlines the adoption process for same-sex couples and facilitates a less cumbersome procedure for establishing the legal parentage of non-biological parents. Simply put, the new statute promotes strong family structures and, at the same time, promotes inclusive policies, allowing same-sex couples to bypass certain lengthy and expensive requirements of the adoption process.
5. In the Matter of an Adoption of W.S. by S.S.: In this matter, the court considered an application by S.S. seeking to amend the final Judgment of Adoption entered by this court on December 21, 2016, to establish that the adoption was in compliance with the Hague Convention. The child in question, a fifteen-year-old, was not permitted to return to the U.S. from Mexico in 2020, despite having lived in the U.S. with her uncle continuously since 2012. At the time of her adoption, W.S. was enrolled in school in New Jersey and had established relationships and friendships with her peers in New Jersey. At the time of her adoption, W.S. had completely acclimated to her life in the United States with her maternal uncle as her father figure. S.S also provided credible testimony that he is a habitual resident of the United States, attaining citizenship here on January 14, 2000. Upon graduation from high school, W.S. enrolled in Stockton College in New Jersey, thereby further establishing her acclimatization and intention to remain in the United States. In contrast, W.S.’s memories of life in Mexico were in the distant past, as she only spent time in that country as a young child. The undisputed, credible evidence in this matter establishes that W.S. was a habitual resident of the United States, not Mexico, when her adoption was finalized in 2016. Accordingly, the court found that the adoption of W.S. by S.S., her maternal uncle, on December 21, 2016, was procedurally proper and fully complied with the requirements of the Hague Adoption Convention, as she was a habitual resident of the United States at the time of that adoption. Moreover, the court also found that the adoption of W.S. did not violate the intent or purposes of the Hague Adoption Convention and complied with the procedures outlined in N.J.A.C. 3A:50-1.5(b)(2). The application of S.S. for entry of an Amended Judgment of Adoption was granted. Sadly, due to immigration complications, W.S. has been unable to return to the United States. This Amended Judgment of Adoption will facilitate the return of W.S. to her home of habitual residence.
6. In the Matter of the Adoption of a Minor Child by J.B.: The adoption petition submitted presented the following question: must an adoption petitioner be legally married to the child’s natural parent in order to abide by the strict language of N.J.S.A. 9:3-50(c) to avoid terminating the parental rights of the natural parent? Such adoptions are commonly called stepparent adoptions if the parties are married and second-parent adoptions if they are unmarried. On September 19, 2019, petitioner J.B. filed a complaint for adoption of a child named B.K.B. The complaint sought to establish the same relationship between the child and J.B., the adopting parent, as if such child had been born to such adopting parent in lawful wedlock including the right of inheritance. J.B. and her partner, the child’s natural mother, R.L., were in a committed relationship for five and a half years, and lived together for nearly five years. Following N.J.S.A. 9:3-50’s last amendment, the courts found that “families have always been complex, multifaceted, and often idealized.” There is no “one formula, one correct pattern that should constitute a family in order to achieve the supportive, loving environment we believe children should inhabit.” Based upon the testimony and evidence, J.B. is “both physically and financially capable of supporting and nurturing the child,” and the “adoption will . . . provide critical legal rights and protections for [the child’s] safety as well as [its] physical and emotional well-being.” The GAL, petitioner’s counsel, and Better Living Services, Inc. all wholeheartedly supported this adoption, and so did the court.
[1] New Jersey Rules of Court 1:36-2(b)
[2] In broad terms, UIFSA governs jurisdiction over the establishment, modification, and enforcement of a child support order when at least one of the parties to the action in which support is requested lives outside of the state.
[3] Enforcement of a support order issued by another country largely depends upon the existence of a reciprocity agreement between that country and the federal or state government pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 659a.
Diana N. Fredericks, Esq., devotes her practice solely to family law matters. She is a Certified Matrimonial Law Attorney and was named to the NJ Super Lawyers Rising Stars list in the practice of family law by Thomson Reuters from 2015 through 2022, to the NJ Super Lawyers list in 2023, and to the New Leaders of the Bar list by the New Jersey Law Journal in 2015. Contact Ms. Fredericks for a consultation at 908-735-5161 or via email.
If you have a suggestion for a future blog topic, please feel free to submit it via the Contact Us form.
Any statements made herein are solely for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.