Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NJ's New Child Support Statute
New Jersey's new child support statute, titled Termination of Obligation to Pay Child Support, N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.67, became effective on Feb. 1. Under this statute, a child support obligation terminates “by operation of law” when the child turns 19, which termination can be extended until the child turns 23 under certain circumstances and using certain procedures. Unless another age for termination of support is present in a court order, or where the child is in an out-of-home placement, the burden is on the custodial parent to submit an application and supporting documentation to the court that seeks an extension of child support beyond the child's 19th birthday. Such a burden is nothing new, as a child reaching the age of majority has long been “prima facie, but not conclusive, proof of emancipation.” Llewelyn v. Shewchuk, 440 N.J. Super. 207, 216 (App. Div. 2015). However, the statute's definitive termination of a child support obligation upon the child's 23rd birthday is new.
Children with Special Needs
An important question to be raised in conjunction with this statute is how it will impact children with special needs. Section (e) of the new statute provides that the court is not prevented “from converting, due to exceptional circumstances, including, but not limited to, a mental or physical disability, a child support obligation to another form of financial maintenance for a child who has reached the age of 23.” As such, it would seem that the legislature simply seeks to relieve the State's Probation Departments from the obligation to monitor and enforce an ongoing child support obligation of a parent to a child with special needs. Rebranding child support as “financial maintenance” means that parties will be left to their own devices with regard to setting up ongoing payment and collection of support for a child with special needs.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.