An intimate relationship that establishes parenthood does many things. For most, it creates a degree of permanent bond between the couple. Like it or not, parents find themselves interacting even when their personal relationships go sour. At the very least, visitation and support can be concerns. This may mean at least preliminary court appearances. So, what happens when child support adjustments seem in order?
Child support obligations can actually last a long time. In fact, in some circumstances, the court can order them indefinitely. In many cases, the divorce decree sets when child support payments terminate. Previously, if the court order said nothing, it was up to person paying support to return to court to request an end to his or her obligation. Notwithstanding, that requirement changed last year. Unless the court order or judgment says differently, termination of child support ends in accordance with NJS 2A:17-56.67.
However, that’s not to say that child support adjustments aren’t warranted. In fact, NJS 2A:17-56.9a references a three-year review of support payments in select matters. Meanwhile, a substantial change in circumstances may justify a reason to return to court.
Of course, changes in circumstances can apply to both parents. It’s not just that the custodial parent who could experience a loss of income or increased expenses related to the child. The mother or father making support payments could also encounter difficulties that were not in play when the child support order was entered.
Father’s Request for Child Support Reduction Denied
At the end of 2017, the New Jersey Appellate Division reviewed a decision made by a Family Court judge. The trial judge granted the father a reduction of child support payments. Nevertheless, the Appellate Division reversed the order in Stephens v. Pickett. Notably, the judicial opinion is an unreported decision. This means that it only pertains to the litigants in this matter.
First, a brief history from the court’s legal opinion. Lamont D. Stephens and Ivonne Pickett never married, but are parents to a set of twins. Stephens was court-ordered to pay Pickett $230 weekly in child support payments.
Meanwhile, Stephens lost his job in 2016 and immediately applied to the court for a reduction in child support payments. Even though he wasted no time in requesting the modification, Stephens categorized his layoff as a change in circumstances.
Upon review of the application, the Family Court judge asked a number of questions, as well as considering submitted documents. Stephens has a fine arts degree and stipulated his last income as a video editor. Previously, Stephens worked as a personal trainer but stated that his earnings changed as a result of changes in the economy.
Notably, the mother showed up for hearing but did not file opposition papers to Stephens’ request. Pickett stated that she was never served with motion papers suggesting a change in circumstances. Additionally, when she asked for them from court officials, they could not be located. Pickett’s request for an adjournment of the motion was denied.
During the hearing, the trial judge asked Stephens questions in an attempt to impute his income. When the father indicated that he was capable of earning $500 per week, the judge used this figure to calculate child support obligations under New Jersey’s Child Support Guidelines. The payments were reduced to $105 per week for the set of twins.
What Happened on Appeal
On appeal, Pickett cited her dismay that the case was not adjourned because she was not afforded the opportunity to properly respond to Stephens’ motion to reduce child support payments. Additionally, her attorney argued that Stephens did not show a change in circumstances warranting the reduction.
The Appellate Division first agreed that an adjournment of the motion was appropriate. Additionally, the court determined that Stephens did not prove a significant change in circumstances. Since he immediately filed the motion for modification of child support, there was a chance his unemployment status was a temporary condition. The father also failed to provide adequate evidence that he was looking for another job. In fact, he also neglected to afford paperwork documenting the original child support order.
Ultimately, the order reducing Stephens’ child support obligations was reversed. However, the court indicated that the father could submit a new application requesting modification of the existing court order.
Contact Us
Experiencing a significant change in circumstances that might impact your child support payments? Do you need a modification to an existing court order to reduce or increase payments? The Law Offices of Sam J. Stoia can assist you. Contact us for a complimentary appointment to discuss your situation. We look forward to helping you!