Mudarse Afuera Del Estado: Lo Que Los Padres de Nueva Jersey Deben Saber

La ley de Nueva Jersey establece que cuando la Corte tiene jurisdicción sobre la custodia y el apoyo de los niños de padres divorciados, separados o que viven separados, los niños no pueden mudarse del estado sin el consentimiento de los niños (si son de edad adecuada) o sin el consentimiento de los dos padres. Si uno de los padres se opone a que los niños se muden de Nueva Jersey, cualquiera de los padres puede presentar una aplicación ante de la Corte para solicitar una orden que permita o prohíba la reubicación. El propósito de la ley es preservar los derechos de los padres que no tienen custodia, así como mantener y desarrollar la relación entre el padre que no tiene custodia y los niños. La Corte ha reconocido que la reubicación de niños del estado puede afectar gravemente los derechos de visita del padre que no tiene la custodia.

Las cortes siguen las normas establecidas en Baures v. Lewis y O’Connor v. O’Connor durante los últimos dieciséis años. Baures, supra, 167 N.J. 91 (2001); O’Connor, supra, 349 N.J. Super. 381 (App. Div. 2002). La decisión de Baures y O’Connor resultó en una prueba de dos puntas. La primera punta hico necesario que la Corte determinar el verdadero acuerdo de custodia física. Podría haber un cierto acuerdo de custodia compartida, o, alternativamente, podría haber un arreglo donde un padre se designa como el padre de residencia primaria (PPR) y el otro padre es designa como el padre de residencia alterna (PAR). La segunda punta requiere que la corte analice la disputa basada en el acuerdo de custodia. En los casos con custodia física compartida, la corte evaluaría lo que será mejor para el niño. En los casos en que existe un arreglo de PPR y PAR, la Corte determinará si el PPR hace la petición de buena fe y si la reubicación haría daño al interés del niño. Este estándar viene de la investigación de ciencias sociales antiguas que pretendía que el interés de un niño estaba atado al bienestar del PPR.

Las cortes adoptaron un nuevo estándar en agosto de 2017 cuando La Corte Suprema de Nueva Jersey decidió el caso de Bisbing v. Bisbing. 2017 N.J. Lexis 830. La Corte reconoció que la ciencia social detrás de la decisión de Baures ya no era universalmente cierta, y como tal, descubrió que independientemente del acuerdo de custodia, las cortes deben decidir las disputas de reubicación al decidir qué es lo mejor para el niño. Esto incluye pero no se limita a losconocimientos de los dos padres, así como los factores estatutarios bajo de N.J.S.A. 9:2-4, que son los siguientes:

* La capacidad de los padres para ponerse de acuerdo, comunicarse y cooperar en materia relacionada con el niño;

* La disposición de los padres a aceptar la custodia y cualquier historial de falta de voluntad para permitir el tiempo de crianza no se basa en el abuso justificado;

* La interacción y relación del niño con sus padres y hermanos;

* La historia de la violencia doméstica, si la hay;

* La seguridad del niño y la seguridad de cualquiera de los padres del abuso físico del otro padre;

* La preferencia del niño cuando tiene suficiente edad y capacidad para razonar a fin de formar una decisión inteligente;

* Las necesidades del niño;

* La estabilidad del ambiente de casa ofrecido;

* La calidad y la continuidad de la educación del niño;

* La aptitud de los padres; la proximidad geográfica de las casas de los padres;

* El alcance y la calidad del tiempo pasado con el niño antes o después de la separación;

* Las responsabilidades laborales de los padres; y

* La edad y el número de niños

Jersey Adventurer; Blog #1 

On October 7, 2017, my husband and I ventured into the woods of West Milford to find an abandoned military jet.  We had GPS coordinates (41.077076, -74.396896) and a bird’s eye view picture of the area courtesy of Google maps.  We parked at the end of a dead-end road and ventured into woods where woodland trails gave way to mud with the consistency of quicksand and tar.  About 500 feet in, we came upon the skeletal remains Lockheed T2V-1.  You might be wondering why there is an abandoned airplane in the middle of the woods in northern Passaic County. 


Circa 1962, this particular Lockheed T2V-1 took off from Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn for a training exercise. The aircraft experienced trouble over New Jersey.  The two occupants attempted the eject from the aircraft but the ejection mechanisms failed, thereby trapping the two occupants inside.  The men cash landed in the middle of the woods, but suffered only minor injuries.  The Navy later removed the aircraft’s engine.  The remainder of the aircraft still lays decaying in the elements more than 55 years later.   


Hikers and adventurers have stripped the aircraft of any and all removable parts, such as its instruments.  More than 5 decades of weather wear and tear has erased all of the paint and insignia from the fuselage.  The nose of the aircraft lays 50 feet south east of the main wreckage, apparently dragged there by overly-ambitious, unsuccessul thieves.  The rivets holding the body panels together showcase the craftsmanship that went into building this generations-old aircraft. 

I would recommend visiting this site to anyone who enjoys hiking, aviation, or military history.  The area around the plane is riddled with shoes that came right off of unlucky visitors due to the unforgiving mud, so I recommend double checking your laces before you stray off the main road. 




3 year marriage could warrant open durational (long term) alimony!

In Friel v. Braun-Friel, a recent unpublished decision of the Appellate Division (March 2, 2018), the Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for a review of the prior decision.

The parties in this case were separated after less than 3 years of marriage. The primary issue was alimony because the Defendant became disabled just after the parties’ marriage and was unable to return to work, rendering her medically and financially dependent upon Plaintiff.

The alimony statute (NJSA 2A:34-23) states that absent exceptional circumstances, an alimony term should not exceed the length of the marriage.

Here, the trial court found that there were exceptional circumstances but ordered only 2 years of alimony at $130/week. The appellate division determined that despite finding exceptional circumstances, the trial court failed to explain why it limited alimony to only 2 years. The appellate division also determined that the trial court should not have considered Defendant’s receipt of SSDI benefits when she had not been approved for same at the time of trial.

This appellate decision reiterates the need for trial courts to give comprehensive and thoughtful decisions supporting their rulings.

Have you had a case where the contested ruling was not supported by a detailed and thoughtful decision? There’s a limited time for reconsideration or appeal of an Order or Judgment. Contact Argentino Family Law & Child Advocacy, LLC now to set up a case assessment to consult with our attorneys about the possible remedies you may have.

Do I Have to Sell My Home if I Get Divorced?

Home For Sale Real Estate Sign and Beautiful New House.

When you are getting divorced, there are different ways to deal with the marital home. If there is equity in the home that the couple accrued during the marriage, it will be divided between the spouses in some manner, in conjunction with the parties’ overall property division.

Selling the marital residence and splitting the proceeds is one of the easier ways to resolve the issue. This may be a necessary option if neither spouse wishes to remain in the marital residence, or neither spouse can afford to remain in the marital residence. The spouses will have to cooperate to the extent necessary to sell the home, but they will each receive liquid assets as opposed to real estate, which can enable them to make a new start or purchase another home.

Another option, if one spouse wishes to remain in the marital residence and can afford to do so, is for that spouse to buy out the other spouse’s share of the equity in the home. Perhaps the simplest way to finance a buy out is to refinance the home solely in the name of the spouse who wishes to stay living in it. This procedure allows the other spouse to remove his or her name from the mortgage, which relieves that spouse of financial liability. During the closing, that spouse also will receive his or her share of the equity in the home.

If a spouse wishes to remain in the marital residence, but cannot afford to refinance or buy out the other spouse’s interest, another option may be for that spouse to remain living in the home, without any distribution of equity to the other spouse, for a certain period of time. This situation may be particularly appropriate if the parties have minor children. For instance, it is not uncommon for the custodial parent to be able to remain in the home until their youngest child reaches the age of 18 or graduates from high school. At the end of that time period, the spouse living in the home must either sell the residence or refinance the home and pay the other spouse his or her share of the equity. The downside to this option, however, is that the name of the spouse who is not living in the home likely will remain on the deed to the house, as well as on the mortgage loan. If the spouse living in the home defaults on mortgage payments or property taxes, the other spouse would be jointly liable for these debts. It is also could preclude the other spouse from being able to move forward with his or her own purchase of a new home. For obvious reasons, this is not a commonly accessed option.

Divorce and separation is never easy, and it can be particularly painful in some circumstances, such as when a spouse fears that he or she can no longer afford to maintain the marital residence. In times like these, it is difficult to make financial decisions that are truly best for you and your family. It is in these kinds of cases that a New Jersey divorce lawyer can be most useful to you and truly make a difference in the outcome of your case. Visit our website at You also can email us at, and one of our staff members will get back to you right away.

Can I Change the Amount of My Alimony Payments?

Top view of young businessman making decision

New Jersey’s 2014 Alimony Reform Act, N.J.S.2A:34-23, fundamentally changed the way that courts handle alimony in New Jersey divorces. There is no more permanent alimony in the state of New Jersey; legislators replaced permanent alimony with open-durational alimony, which is only available in long-term marriages of 20 years or more, where there has been a significant difference between each spouse’s earning capacity. The Act also made it easier in some respects to terminate or modify alimony payments in certain circumstances. Keep in mind, however, that the Act differentiates between alimony awards made before the effective date of the Act and after the effective date of the Act. As a result, the standard for changing the amount of alimony payments or terminating them altogether is different in some situations, depending on the effective date of the alimony award.

One major change to New Jersey alimony law is the ability of a payor to modify the amount of alimony payments if he or she loses a job. While in the past a payor had a larger burden to justify the modification of an alimony award, it has become much easier when the issue is employment-related. Under current New Jersey law, once an alimony payor has been involuntarily unemployed for a period of 90 days or more, he or she has the right to ask the court to modify the alimony amount. However, the payor must attempt to mitigate the loss and keep records of diligent efforts to replace employment.

There now is a rebuttable presumption that a payor’s alimony obligation should terminate when he or she reaches full retirement age under the federal Social Security Act. However, the other party can rebut this presumption in certain circumstances, if he or she can show good cause for continuing the alimony past the age of the payor’s retirement. In making a decision about rebutting this presumption, the judge must consider a number of factors, which include all sources of income and assets for both parties, the parties’ health, the sum and period of alimony paid, the amount and duration of economic reliance by one party on the other party, and the parties’ ages at the time of the marriage, at the time alimony was ordered, and at the time of their retirement. See Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J.139, 416 A.2d 45 (1980).

Furthermore, if payor wants to retire prior to full retirement age, the court must consider similar factors in deciding whether to modify or terminate the alimony award, as well as other factors, such as the payor’s reasons for retiring, the payor’s eligible retirement age at his or her workplace, and the payor’s ability to make the payments following retirement. However, a payor is not allowed to simply retire early in order to avoid paying alimony.

The attorneys of Argentino Family Law & Child Advocacy, LLC , know how difficult legal proceedings can be, particularly when they involve matters that are central to your financial well-being. If you are looking for help with a legal matter involving families or children, you need the advice and guidance of one of our attorneys. Contact our office today to set up a meeting with an experienced lawyer at Argentino Family Law & Child Advocacy, LLC, and learn how we can help you with your legal case.