Source: https://www.newjerseydivorcelawyer-blog.com/new-jersey-appellate-division-reverses-trial-court-ruling-rejecting-fathers-application-emancipate-adult-child/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:32:17+00:00

Document:
March 21, 2016 | The Law Office of James P. Yudes, P.C.
On March 17, 2016, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued an unpublished opinion in the case of Parrish v. Klugar 2015 WL 10488423 (App. Div. 2016). In the Parrish case, the father appealed from an August 18, 2014 post-judgment Family Part order that denied his motion to emancipate his then twenty-one-year-old child, ordered the parties to cooperate with a parenting coordinator and abide by her recommendations, and directed the parties to “‘return’ to a psychologist for updated psychological evaluations for themselves as well as their two younger children, then ages thirteen and twelve. The trial court resolved these issues without a hearing in the face of certifications disputing material facts.” The Appellate Division also noted that the trial court’s “statement of reasons does not adequately explain its decisions”, which was paramount in the appellate court’s decision to ultimately reverse and remand the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
The facts presented to the court involved an approximately 10 year marriage. Three children were born of the marriage, who were ages 21, 13 and 12 when the trial court issued the August 18, 2014 Order denying the father’s application to have the 21 year old declared emancipated, and referred issued to a parenting coordinator which is usually a mental health professional or lawyer which specializes in the subject. Later that same year, the father filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his request to emancipate the eldest child and to terminate the services of the parenting coordinator due to his former wife’s failure to cooperate in the same.
Some of the facts the father cited in support of this motion to emancipate the 21 year old were: (1) the child had not spoken with him for more than three years; (2) he claimed he did not have a say in the child’s college choices; (3) the child is not a full-time student; and (4) lack of knowledge regarding the child’s grades. The father ultimately lamented in his papers filed with the court: “The last time I was informed,[the child] had passed [twenty-seven] credits out of [fifty-four]. [The child] has completed [six][s]emesters at a [two-]year Community College and is very far away from graduating. At the current pace [the child] will be enrolled in school for [four-five] years to get a[two]-year degree.” The mother responded that the father was responsible for the breakdown in the relationship with the child and reason for a delay in the child’s matriculation was a change of major and illness.
The Appellate Division continued, “When a child has reached the age of eighteen, the child is presumed to be emancipated, N.J.S.A. 9:17B–3, but the presumption is not conclusive. Newburgh, supra, 88 N.J. at 543. Consequently, if a child has reached age eighteen, the person seeking to have parental support continue has the burden of overcoming the statutory presumption. See Llewelyn v. Shewchuk, 440 N.J.Super. 207, 216 (App.Div.2015); Filippone, supra, 304 N.J.Super. at 308. A well-established instance defeating a request for emancipation and requiring continued support occurs when a custodial parent proves the child remains a full-time student. Limpert v. Limpert, 119 N.J.Super. 438, 442–43 (App.Div.1972). When a dependent child is enrolled in a full-time educational program, child support must continue. See Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535, 542 (2006) (‘The Legislature and our courts have long recognized a child’s need for higher education and that this need is a proper consideration in determining a parent’s child support obligation.’); Patetta v. Patetta, 358 N.J.Super. 90, 94 (App.Div.2003) (stating ‘while parents are not generally required to support a child over eighteen, his or her enrollment in a full-time educational program has been held to require continued support’).
The father on appeal challenged the unsubstantiated finding of the trial court that the child was enrolled fulltime given the fact that the trial court did not address the evidence contained in the record that child did not pass the required amount of courses to remain a fulltime student. The father cited the case of Tretola v. Tretola, 389 N.J.Super. 15, 18–19 (App.Div.2006), that has been recited as standing for the fact that “full-time” means “twelve credit hours per semester.” The Appellate Division ultimately reversed the ruling of the trial court on the grounds that the Statement of Reasons failed to “adequately explain how it resolved these and other conflicting facts set forth in the parties’ certifications.” The Appellate Division also noted that, “the trial judge’s statement of reasons includes no analysis of the statute or a consideration of the Newburgh factors, which notably include ‘the commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education.’ Newburgh, supra, 88 N.J. at 545. See also Moehring v. Maute, 268 N.J.Super. 477, 480–81 (Ch. Div.1993) (holding a child past the age of majority who is a full-time student, diligent in her studies, getting good grades, and still dependent on her parents, is not emancipated and is entitled to continued financial support if the parents have the ability to pay).” The Appellate Division also noted that plenary hearing should be held when genuine issues of material fact exist.
As the educational costs of adult children continue to increase exponentially, it is paramount to have experienced representation in litigation the issue of child emancipation and educational expenses. The six lawyers at James P. Yudes, P.C. have extensive legal experience exclusively in the area of family law in courts throughout the State of New Jersey, including in the Appellate Division and Supreme Court of New Jersey.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.