SteveK August 12th, 2011

We are pleased to announce the following:

James J. Moloughney, Esq., who is of counsel to the firm,  who concentrates his practice in family law matters and is certified by the New Jersey Supreme Court as a Matrimonial Attorney and is an approved mediator for matrimonial matters, has been elected President of the Somerset County Bar Association.
Todd Ruback, Esq., who s of counsel to the firm, is  a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP) and Certified Information Privacy Professional/Information Technology (CIPP/IT) and concentrates his practice in internet privacy and technology matters has been appointed Chairman of the Privacy Committee of the New Jersey State Bar Association.  Todd will be working with the Institute for Continuing Legal Education (ICLE) to create a seminar on privacy law in New Jersey.
Richard Pompelio, Esq. (Of Counsel) and Nicholas Pompelio, Esq. (associate) have joined the firm.
Rich is the Founder and Executive Director of the NJ Crime Victims’ Law Center (1992 to present) and former Chairman of the NJ Victims of Crime Compensation Board (2003-2005). He is a graduate of the University of Kentucky College of Law. He teaches at Sussex County Community College and Centenary College. Rich has published a book (Crime Victims’ Rights) and two magazines (Victim Voice).  He will be responsible for establishing the Crime Victim Civil Litigation Practice Group for the firm.
Nicholas is a 2008 graduate of New England School of Law, where he served as Associate Editor of the New England Law Review. He clerked from 2008 to 2009 for Judge Thomas Critchley in the Superior Court, Morris County.

Tags: Crime Victims Law, Divorce Law, Family Law, Matrimonial Law, Mediation, Privacy Law, Technology Law

• Crime Victims , Divorce Law , Family Law , Mediation , Privacy Law , Technology Law
• Comments Off

SteveK July 5th, 2011

In J.M.S. v. J.W., the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, recently concluded that the Adoption Act, does not bar grandparents from seeking visitation under the grandparent visitation statute.  The trial court judge relied heavily on the case of In re Adoption of a Child by W.P., 163 N.J. 158 (2000). The Appellate Court distinguished this case from W.P. because W.P. addressed the issue of grandparent visitation in the context of a non-relative adoption.  In this case, the children had been adopted by other relatives.

Plaintiffs in this appeal are the paternal grandparents of J.W., born in 1999, and T.W., born in 2001.  Defendants are the adoptive parents and are cousins of the children’s biological mother.

Beginning in or about December 2008, parents began to cut the grandparents out of the children’s lives.  The parents refused to inform the grandparents of events, and then flatly denied them visits and/or access to the children.  These actions were quickly followed by allegations from the grandparents that the parents were now taking poor care of the children.

In this appeal the plaintiffs’ requested grandparent visitation where:

(1) The grandparents had been the children’s temporary foster parents for almost two years;

(2) The children were later adopted by defendants who are related to the children’s mother; and

(3) Defendants had afforded the grandparents visitation for two years following the adoptions.
Following oral argument, the trial judge dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint for grandparent visitation, based upon the W.P. case.   The grandparents appealed.

The Appellate Court concluded that the Adoption Act, N.J.S.A. 9:3-38 to -56, does not preclude these grandparents from seeking visitation under the grandparent visitation statute (N.J.S.A. 9:2-71), because the W.P. case dealt with children who were adopted by a non-relative.  The Appellate Division determined that this distinction was critical and subsequently reversed the Order granting summary judgment to defendants, reinstated grandparents’ Complaint for grandparent visitation, and remanded for further proceedings.

DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis & Lehrer, PC ( http://www.dbnjlawblog.com) is a full service law firm in New Jersey which provides a broad range of legal services, including the representation of parties in matrimonial and family law matters. For additional information about the matters in this bulletin or in the firm’s family law practice please contact James Moloughney, Esq.

Tags: Divorce Law, Family Law, Grandparents, Matrimonial Law, Visitation

• Family Law , Marital Law , Matrimonial Law
• Comments Off

SteveK January 23rd, 2010

In A.G.R. v. D.R.H.  ( also known as Robinson v. Hollingsworth), the Superior Court in Hudson County continued the long standing public policy in New Jersey of voiding surrogacy agreements. The New Jersey Supreme Court first established this policy In The Matter of Baby M. 

 The defendants in the present matter, D.R. and S.H. are a male gay couple, legally married in California.  They registered their Domestic Partnership in New Jersey.  Defendant, D.R. is the brother of Plaintiff, A.G.R.  Twins were conceived using sperm from S.H. and eggs from an anonymous donor.  A.G.R. carried the twins, as a gestational surrogate only.  The children were born and a consent to adoption was signed by A.G.R. in favor of D.R. and S.H. thus terminating any parental rights she may have had.  A.G.R. then contested the gestational surrogacy agreement and sought parental rights. In the Baby M case, the surrogate mother, Ms. Whitehead, was also the natural mother of the child.  In this case, however, the Defendants argued that since there was no genetic link between the surrogate mother and the child, the result should be different.   Judge Schultz disagreed and on December 23, 2009 ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, by declaring gestational surrogacy agreements to be a violation of the public policy of the State of New Jersey.  The court voided the Consent to adoption, declared S.H. to be the father of the twins, and declared that A.G.R.’s parental rights remained undisturbed.

  DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis & Lehrer, PC ( http://www.dbnjlawblog.com) is a full service law firm in New Jersey which provides a broad range of legal services, including the representation of parties in matrimonial and family law matters. For additional information about the matters in this bulletin or in the firm’s family law practice please contact James Moloughney, Esq.

Tags: Divorce Law, Family Law, Matrimonial Law

• Divorce Law , Family Law , Marital Law , Matrimonial Law
• Comments Off

SteveK January 12th, 2010

The New Jersey Appellate Division has recently upheld a trial court determination that a 23-year-old child was not emancipated and was entitled to contribution toward her education costs as well as continued child support.

In Mulcahey v. Melici the Appellate Division found that the determination of emancipation is a fact-sensitive inquiry that involves a critical evaluation of the prevailing circumstances including the child’s need, interests, and independent resources, the family’s reasonable expectations, and the parties’ financial ability, among other things. The Court followed prior precedent holding that emancipation is a question of need not age.

This decision is contrary to common belief that emancipation automatically occurs upon college graduation. Courts, however, have begun to recognize that completion of undergraduate education is not the determinative factor for either declaring emancipation or terminating child support. See, e.g., Ross v. Ross, 167 N.J. Super. 441, 400 A.2d 1233 (Ch. Div. 1979) (declaring daughter could not be considered emancipated as she was attending law school after obtaining her undergraduate degree). See also Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250, 261, 864 A.2d 1108 (2005) (affirming the trial court’s judgment ordering parent to pay for graduate school in addition to college). Similarly, a one-year hiatus from college does not mandate emancipation. See Sakovits v. Sakovits, 178 N.J. Super. 623, 630, 631, 429 A.2d 1091 (Ch. Div. 1981) (stating it would be inequitable for parental contributions to end simply because a child takes a hiatus). See also Keegan v. Keegan, 326 N.J. Super. 289, 294-96, 741 A.2d 134 (App. Div. 1999) (determining child was not emancipated even though she took a hiatus from college to pursue brief employment).

DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis & Lehrer, PC ( http://www.dbnjlawblog.com) is a full service law firm in New Jersey which provides a broad range of legal services, including the representation of parties in matrimonial and family law matters. For additional information about the matters in this bulletin or in the firm’s family law practice please contact James Moloughney, Esq.

Tags: Family Law, Matrimonial Law

• Family Law , Marital Law
• Comments Off