The Collaborative Divorce Association of North Jersey (the Association”) held a seminar on April 21, 2015 regarding Ethics and the Collaborative Law Process. Larry Esposito, president of the Association conducted the presentation. Larry integrated Opinion 699 of the Advisory Committee of Professional Ethics with the relevant N.J. Rules of Professional Conduct, the International Association of Collaborative Professionals ethical standards and the recently passed New Jersey Family Collaborative Law Act. The attendees of the Association were all collaborative law attorneys and the discussions addressed: screening issues before a client may enter into the collaborative law process; how ethics apply to the Participation Agreement, which every client must sign to commence the collaborative law process; confidentiality issues, discovery issues, cut off dates and advocacy issues during the process. This subject is of great concern to collaborative law attorneys since they represent a client on a very limited basis during the collaborative process and facts arise regarding all these issues which must be dealt with ethically.
Philip C. Puglisi , a divorce lawyer in Bergen County wants those parents that have a special need trust to see the latest case on this matter. In J.B. v. W.B., Sup. Ct. (Cuff, P.J.A.D.) (16 pp.) A parent seeking to modify a negotiated agreement for the support of a disabled child through the establishment of a special needs trust must present a specific plan and demonstrate how the proposed trust will benefit the disabled child. When a disabled child is the subject of a proposed special needs trust, it is within the trial court’s discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem in New Jersey. In its first opportunity to consider the role of trusts for the benefit of adult, unemancipated, disabled children of divorce, the New Jersey Supreme Court said judges should not reject such arrangements out of hand if created for the children’s best interests. Though affirming two lower courts that held a proposed special-needs trust — for a 25-year-old autistic son living in a group home — lacked sufficient detail on how it would be in his best interests, the justices, in J.B. v. W.B., allowed another chance to prove it and enunciated guidelines.
Who gets the child support arrears when the divorced mother dies? Philip Puglisi, a Bergen County divorce lawyer, wants his viewers to know that the answer is: “Child support arrears due a divorcée at the time of her death belonged to her estate, not to her emancipated son, a New Jersey appeals court says. The child’s mother was the obligee and the debt transferred to her estate when she died, the Appellate Division held in Roder v. Roder on Dec. 31.” Philip Puglisi says: This is nice to know isn’t it?
Philip Puglisi, a Bergen County divorce lawyer, thought you would be interested in the recent case regarding who can and can not be be a caregiver of a child in NJ. In “New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. J.S., App. Div. (Sabatino, J.A.D.) (32 pp.) Defendant, a biological father, appeals from the Family Part’s judgment terminating his parental rights as to his minor child following a multiday trial. Among other things, defendant argues that the trial court erred in upholding a decision of the Division of Youth and Family Services to “rule out” two cousins who had expressed interest in serving as alternative caregivers for the child. Affirming the final judgment, we reject defendant’s argument that the division lacks the authority to rule out relatives under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12.1 based on considerations of a child’s best interests. Instead, we hold that the applicable statutory provisions and a related regulation, N.J.A.C. 10:120A-3.1, allow the division to rule out a relative on such best-interests grounds, regardless of the relative’s willingness or ability to care for a child. However, the division’s rule-out authority is always subject to the Family Part’s ultimate assessment of that child’s best interests. We also uphold the validity of the language in N.J.A.C. 10:120A-3.1(b) prohibiting a relative who the division rules out on best-interests grounds from pursuing an administrative appeal of that agency determination. However, we urge the division to act with reasonable diligence in notifying a potential caretaker that he or she has been ruled out, once the investigation of that person has been completed.” Joseph Noto says people should bear this case in mind: that the best interest of the child applies when determening a caregiver.
Philip Puglisi, a Bergen County divorce lawyer, wants grandparents to know that that there is a bill regarding their visitation rights before the legislature that would erect High Hurdles to grandarents seeking visitation. The New Jersey Law Journal on December 2, 2013 reports that: “the Legislation that would toughen New Jersey’s statutory standards for granting visitation rights to grandparents, and siblings, over parental objections is drawing closer to final passage. The legislation—approved Monday by the Assembly Judiciary Committee—would codify a decade-old state Supreme Court holding that applicants may be granted visitation only if they prove denial would harm the child.” Philip Puglisi will keep his blog viewers posted on the ultimate status of this Bill.
Philip Puglisi, a Bergen County divorce attorney and Family Law lawyer, gives to his blog viewers a recent ruling that was made in 20-2-2358 S.M. v. K.M., App. Div. (Koblitz, J.A.D.) (10 pp.) where the court granted leave to appeal from an order preventing a father in a pending divorce case from having any contact with his two children until the criminal charges against him, involving an allegation that he pointed a BB gun at his son, are resolved. It reversed and remanded for a hearing before the Family Part judge at which the prosecutor, criminal defense attorney and two family lawyers may be heard. The court relied on Rule 5:12-6 and AOC Directive 03-09, which control visitation decision-making when an abuse and neglect case is being heard in the Family Part while a parent has criminal charges pending. Philip Puglisi says family law lawyers and divorce attorneys should be acquainted with this case when dealing with vistation issues.
Philip Puglisi, a Bergen County divorce lawyer, wants to let you know that if you are going through a divorce and alimony is an issue, that duration of the alimony will arise. When is it a permanent alimony case? Philip Puglisi wants you to know that just recently in the Gnall v. Gnall, App. Div. (Lihotz, J.A.D.) (48 pp.) case the court in reviewing plaintiff’s challenge to a limited-duration alimony award, reversed the lower court’s ruling when the lower court declared that a 15-year marriage does not qualify as permanent alimony and had ruled that it was short-term alimony. The Court listed all the factors in determining this case when arriving at this conclusion as to the alimony duration. Philip Puglisi wants you to make sure all these factors are taken into consideration when you negotiate the duration if you are the recipient of alimony. Philip Puglisi as a Bergen County divorce lawyer can not impress enough upon the reader that this duration of alimony is critical to the client, since it effects the recipient’s life long term.
Philip Puglisi, a Bergen County divorce lawyer, said that Governor Christie signed the Alimony bill, which law went into effective immediately. In essence it eliminated permant alimony and created duration alimony periods up to the length of the marriage. It also addresses, among other things, the meaning of a cohabitation and how do you do make a post judment motion for a change in circumsance in order to suspend or terminate alimony. Philip Puglisi said to please keep your Case Information Statement when you got a divorce since it is needed in a Post Judgment divorce motion. Philip Puglisi felt this was long overdue.