Child support

 TCJA eliminates Personal Exemptions in favor of a larger Standard Deduction. Thus, the party availing itself of a Personal Exemption will no longer have the benefit thereof and the available income will be different.

Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any plan or arrangement addressed herein.

The information contained in this communication does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry which would be applied in the event a formal opinion was rendered by this firm.

Consult your Tax Advisor as to all Tax matters.
Read more . . .

TCJA does not affect Child Support per se; rather, the fact that Alimony is no longer deductible to the Payor nor included to the Payee as to new Divorces (and certain modified Divorces) renders the Child Support Guidelines different than would have been under the old laws inasmuch as the available income to each party shall now be different.

Internal Revenue Service Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any plan or arrangement addressed herein.

The information contained in this communication does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry which would be applied in the event a formal opinion was rendered by this firm.

Consult your Tax Advisor as to all Tax matters.

When parties were never married to each other. The non-dissolution or FD docket provides a mechanism for parents who never were married to each other to obtain relief from the court on matters pertaining to custody, parenting time, paternity, and child support.

In a Decision – Macekv. Peisch (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division determined that a Father who was avoiding arrest on $101,000.00 in owed child support could not seek judicial help.

The trial court found that Father was willfully unemployed and not indigent, and permitted an “ability-to-pay” hearing. The trial court determined Father not to be indigent, and found him willfully unemployment.
Read more . . .

In a Decision – Friedman v. Friedman (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal holding appellant must file an application in the trial court, pursuant to Rule 4:50-1 or on other grounds as he may deem appropriate, in order to set aside the divorce decree.

Following several years of litigation in the parties’ divorce proceedings, the trial court entered a default judgment of divorce which established property distribution, domestic support obligations, and child custody.  At the default hearing, to which Husband failed to attend, the trial judge barred defense counsel from cross-examining Wife because of Husband’s disregard for his obligation in the litigation over a period of years. The Appellate Division noted it was well established that appeals must be dismissed when taken against a judgment by default.

In a  Decision – Newell v. Shain  (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate  Division determined that  the Family Part properly ordered the spouse to pay counsel fees via weekly wage garnishment  following a calculation of appellant’s earned income and his financial commitments toward his three children.

On appeal, appellant argued the current wage execution was not a suitable course of action because it would cause financial hardship for the children. N.J.
Read more . . .