RECORD IMPOUNDED 

 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3822-21 

PATRICIA R. AUSLANDER, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant/ 

 Cross-Respondent, 

v.

ROBERT AUSLANDER, 

 Defendant-Respondent/ 

 Cross-Appellant. 

___________________________ 

Submitted January 30, 2024 – Decided February 7, 2024 

Before Judges Haas and Puglisi. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, 

Docket No. FM-14-1279-14.

Speck Law Offices, LLC, attorneys for appellant/crossrespondent (Michael R. Speck, on the briefs). 

Berse Law, LLC, attorneys for respondent/crossappellant (Samuel J. Berse, on the briefs). 

PER CURIAM 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-3822-21

 In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Patricia R. Auslander 

appeals from the Family Part's July 1, 2022 order, which increased defendant 

Richard Auslander's child support obligation to $1,908 per week for the parties' 

four children. Defendant has filed a cross-appeal from the same order. The 

parties both argue that the order must be reversed and remanded because the 

trial court did not make any findings of fact or conclusions of law explaining the 

basis for its child support calculation. We agree.

 The parties were married in 2002 and they divorced in 2016. In 2020, 

defendant's alimony obligation to plaintiff ceased under the terms of their 

matrimonial settlement agreement. On August 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion 

seeking an increase in defendant's $880 per month child support obligation. On 

December 1, 2020, the trial court found that the cessation of alimony constituted 

a change of circumstances warranting a review of child support. The court 

scheduled a case management conference in order to set the terms of financial 

discovery. 

Thereafter, the case slowly proceeded through the litigation process. On 

May 12, 2021, the trial court increased child support to $451 per week on an 

interim basis retroactive to December 1, 2020. The parties filed more motions, 
3 A-3822-21

and the court entered additional orders on a number of topics. At the end of 

2021, a different trial judge took over the management of the case. 

 In March 2022, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a final child support order. 

The trial court ordered the parties to produce additional financial information. 

In May 2022, plaintiff asked for a plenary hearing and counsel fees. The court 

denied this motion but did not provide a statement of reasons for its decision. 

 Finally, on July 1, 2022, the trial court issued the order that is the subject 

of this appeal. In paragraph one of the order, the court stated: 

Upon the [c]ourt's review of the parties' updated 

earnings information, [d]efendant will now pay 

$1,908.00/week in base child support via Morris 

County Probation, effective the date of this order. The 

relevant child support guidelines worksheets are 

attached. The [c]ourt used [d]efendant's Social 

Security Earnings Statement which states $657,332.00 

in 2021 Medicare wages ($12,641.00/week), and used 

[p]laintiff's Social Security Earnings Statement which 

states $31,475.00 in 2021 Medicare wages 

($605.00/week). The [c]ourt determined it was 

appropriate to utilize the guidelines to set an amount for 

base child support, understanding that this is an above 

the guidelines case. 

 This was the only explanation provided by the court for its ruling. The 

four child support worksheets were appended to the order. It appears that the 

court simply added the child support number for each child together to arrive at 

the new $1,908 per month obligation. 
4 A-3822-21

 As the parties argue on appeal, this unexplained calculation cannot stand. 

Where, as here, the parties' combined income levels exceed the maximum child 

support guidelines, "the maximum amount provided for in the guidelines should 

be 'supplemented' by an additional award determined through application of the 

statutory factors in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a)" in the court's discretion. Isaacson v. 

Isaacson, 348 N.J. Super. 560, 581 (App. Div. 2002). "In the context of highincome parents whose ability to pay is not an issue, 'the dominant guideline for 

consideration is the reasonable needs of the children, which must be addressed 

in the context of the standard of living of the parties.'" Strahan v. Strahan, 402 

N.J. Super. 298, 307 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Isaacson, 348 N.J. Super. at 

581). 

To determine the needs of a child in a high-income family, 

a balance must be struck between reasonable needs, 

which reflect lifestyle opportunities, while at the same 

time precluding an inappropriate windfall to the child 

or even in some cases infringing on the legitimate right 

of either parent to determine the appropriate lifestyle of 

a child. This latter consideration involves a careful 

balancing of interests reflecting that a child's 

entitlement to share in a parent's good fortune does not 

deprive either parent of the right to participate in the 

development of an appropriate value system for a child. 

This is a critical tension that may develop between

competing parents. Ultimately, the needs of a child in 

such circumstances also calls to the fore the best 

interests of a child. 
5 A-3822-21

[Isaacson, 348 N.J. Super. at 582.] 

Here, the trial court's terse one-paragraph explanation of its calculation 

fails to demonstrate that it applied these principles in determining the amount of 

child support due the children. While the court completed four standard child 

support worksheets, there is no evidence that it considered any of the statutory 

criteria for child support as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. The court also failed 

to make any findings concerning the reasonable needs of the children. The court 

did not explain its rationale for its determination nor did it address any of the 

parties' competing arguments. 

Rule 1:7-4(a) clearly states that a trial "court shall, by an opinion or 

memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state its 

conclusions of law thereon . . . on every motion decided by a written order that 

is appealable as of right[.]" See Shulas v. Estabrook, 385 N.J. Super. 91, 96 

(App. Div. 2006) (requiring an adequate explanation of basis for court's action). 

Here, the court provided no reasons for the July 1, 2022 order. Curtis v. 

Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980) (requiring court to clearly state its factual 

findings and correlate them with the relevant legal conclusions). As a result, we 

have no way of knowing why it determined that $1,908 per week in child support 

was appropriate. 
6 A-3822-21

In addition, the trial court did not explain why it did not make the new 

obligation retroactive to August 28, 2020, the date plaintiff filed her original 

motion; December 1, 2020, the date the court set in its May 12, 2021 order for 

the commencement of the interim modification; or some other date. The court 

failed to set the amount of any arrears due plaintiff. The trial court also did not 

address plaintiff's request for a plenary hearing or the parties' applications for 

counsel fees. 

 "Meaningful appellate review is inhibited unless the [trial court] sets forth 

the reasons for [its] opinion." Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. at 310 (quoting Salch v. 

Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441, 443 (App. Div. 1990)). The failure to provide 

findings of fact and conclusions of law "'constitutes a disservice to the litigants, 

the attorneys[,] and the appellate court.'" Curtis, 83 N.J. at 569-70 (quoting 

Kenwood Assocs. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 141 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 1976)). 

The trial court's complete failure to provide the findings of fact and conclusions 

of law required by Rule 1:7-4(a) necessitates a remand for fulfillment of the trial 

court's obligation in this regard. 

 We recognize the difficulties the Family Part faces, day in and day out, of 

dealing with large volumes of contested matters, particularly in high-conflict 

matrimonial cases such as this one. Litigants may deluge the court with 
7 A-3822-21

complicated filings, prayers for relief, and opposition papers. Nevertheless, 

despite these pressures, trial courts must endeavor to make the necessary rulings 

on a timely basis and provide ample reasons for their decisions to guide the 

parties and also to enable meaningful appellate review if it is sought. In some 

instances, more detailed reasoning might discourage parties from moving for 

reconsideration or pursuing appeals, thereby saving time and expense in the long 

run. It is not clear why this particular case went amiss, but a remand will provide 

an opportunity for prompt corrective action to be undertaken. 

 Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.