Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
New Jersey's new child support statute, titled Termination of Obligation to Pay Child Support, 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. But what about children with special needs?
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.
*May exclude premium content
By Matthew A. Feigin
This article is intended to help practitioners by warning of mistakes the author has seen matrimonial attorneys make in applying federal tax law.
By Laurence J. Cutler and Alyssa M. Clemente
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
According to the authors, using the holding of recent New Jersey Supreme Court case Bisbing v. Bisbing as a model, the clear and current trend throughout the United States that when a custodial parent is seeking to relocate outside of the state with a child, the best interest of the child standard should apply.
By David Bliven
This article addresses some deficiencies in reviewing separation or settlement agreements done in divorce cases, and recommends various clauses that practitioners may implement in their own practices.
Analysis of a case in which the Eighth Circuit reversed the confirmation by the Board of Immigration Appeals of a deportation order because the Immigration Judge’s finding of a fraudulent marriage was not based on proper evidence.