The Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein, Blader &  Lehmann,  P.C. family law department, which is one of the largest and most respected in Central New Jersey, has successfully argued family law cases at all levels of the New Jersey Court system.               

             In Levine v. Bacon, 152 N.J. 436 (1998), the firm successfully argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court that a custodial father's attempt to relocate from New Jersey to Florida with his minor child would be contrary to the best interest of the child, inasmuch as the move would substantially interfere with the mother's relationship with her daughter.

             In the landmark case of Hughes v. Hughes, 311 N.J.Super. 15 (App. Div. 1998), the firm changed the standard for setting alimony in the State of New Jersey when it successfully argued before the Appellate Division that a marriage of 10 years is not a short term marriage under today's standards, and that the wife in that case was therefore entitled to permanent alimony.

             Seven years later, in 2005, Brian G. Paul convinced the Appellate Division to reverse a permanent alimony award that a family part judge had granted in a 12 year marriage.  In Weaver v. Weaver, Brian argued that in an intermediate length marriage, such as the 10 year marriage in Hughes v. Hughes and the 12 year marriage in Weaver, the Trial Court must be required to analyze what actually occurred to both spouses during their marriage in order to determine whether the public policy reasons behind the creation of a permanent alimony award actually exists in the present case. One of the primary purposes behind the creation of the concept of permanent alimony is to compensate a dependent spouse who has sacrificed their career or educational goals in order to perform the non-economic tasks associated with the marital partnership, such as child rearing and homemaking. Therefore, permanent alimony is meant to compensate the dependent spouse for the “transfer of earning power” that often occurs during a traditional marriage in which the homemaker spouse’s non-economic efforts increased the other’s earning capacity by freeing them to concentrate on their career at the expense of her own. Because the Appellate Division agreed with Brian that the Weaver case lacked the characteristics for which a permanent alimony award is normally granted, it reversed the Trial Court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to consider a limited duration alimony award instead.

             In 1999, the firm attained national recognition when it successfully suspended a professional boxer’’s license for his failure to pay child support. This is believed to be the first case in the United States where a professional athlete’s sporting license was suspended for child support enforcement purposes.

             In the year 2000, the firm won two unreported Appellate Division child support cases, Simmonds v. Simmonds and Wiedaseck v. Immesberger. In each of those cases, the firm successfully convinced the Appellate Division that the Trial Court Judges had improperly calculated child support. Both cases were reversed and remanded back to the Trial Court so that child support could be recalculated properly.

             In 2001, the firm won the Appellate Division case of White v. Bates. There, a divorced mother of three was awarded just $24 per week in child support by the Trial Court. The father in the case had custody of the parties’ son who was attending college, while the mother had custody of the parties’ 15 year old daughter and a younger child from another relationship. The firm argued that the trial court improperly included the older child’s college tuition as a court approved extraordinary expense on the child support worksheet, and failed to give primary consideration to the minor children when calculating child support. The Appellate Division agreed, and reversed and remanded the matter for a plenary hearing so that child support could be properly calculated.  On remand the mother was awarded $165 per week in child support, instead of the $24 per week originally ordered, as well as $18,000 in back child support and private school expenses.

             In two separate Appellate Division cases in 2002, the firm successfully argued that the Husbands' proposed method of limiting their ex-wive’s portion of the husbands’ pensions to their values several years earlier at the time of the divorce was unfair and inequitable. Our attorneys argued that the Husbands' method would unfairly pay the wives, many years later at the time of the Husbands' eventual retirement, in the value of past dollars calculated at the time of the divorce. The firm successfully convinced the Appellate Division that a "marital coverture fraction" should be applied to the monthly pension payment at the time it was actually received. The coverture fraction is a fraction in which the numerator is the number of years of employment that took place during the marriage, while the denominator is the total number of years of employment that it took to earn the pension. The Appellate Division agreed with our attorneys that the coverture fraction more equitably recognizes the efforts of a non-working spouse during the marriage, while at the same time protecting the post-divorce efforts of the working spouse.

               In McConnell v. McConnell, the firm successfully vacated $54,400 in alleged child support arrears that a Wife had erroneously convinced the Probation Department to apply to a Husband’s probation account. In that case, the Wife alleged for the first time in the year 2000 that the Husband had paid virtually no child support since 1987 when the Order was entered. Without providing the Husband a hearing, the Probation Department applied the arrears against the Husband’s account. After a trial, Brian G. Paul, Esq. of the firm successfully convinced the Trial Court that the arrears had erroneously been placed against the account, and that the Husband had paid the Wife all monies owed, despite the fact that there was no record of the vast majority of payments that were made in cash. The Court agreed with Brian that even if the Husband was not able to prove that all payments were made, the claim was barred by the doctrines of laches, inasmuch as records had been lost or destroyed over the 12 year period that the Wife waited to bring the action. Laches is an equitable doctrine that prevents stale claims from being enforced by denying relief where there has been an unexplainable and inexcusable delay by a litigant in enforcing a known right, and the delay has resulted in prejudice to the other party.

               In 2003, the firm successfully convinced a Burlington County Trial Court Judge that a custodial father should be permitted to relocate to the State of Florida with the parties' 15 year old son and 13 year old daughter. The mother of the children objected to the move, claiming that the father was moving in order to circumvent her parenting time with the children. After a trial, the Court agreed with Brian G. Paul's argument that the father had a good faith motive for the proposed relocation, inasmuch as he presented evidence demonstrating that his business' productivity and profits would most likely increase significantly with his relocating to Florida. Moreover, the Trial Court Judge also agreed that the move was not inimical to the children's best interests, inasmuch as they would receive educational opportunities, leisure activities and an overall lifestyle that was at least equal to those they currently enjoyed. Finally, the Court agreed with Brian that because of the advance age of the children, email and video conferencing were viable alternatives for helping to preserve the mother's relationship with the children in between face to face visits.

               In 2004, the firm won an emergent appeal summarily reversing the entry of a Final Restraining Order prohibiting a father from having any contact with his ex-wife and 17 year old son.  In that case, the parties had been divorced for 8 years, and shared joint physical custody of their 17 year old son under a 50/50 parenting arrangement.  After the son had been performing poorly in school, the father went to his ex-wife’s residence and left a note in her bedroom stapled to the child’s school records indicating that they needed to talk about their son’s scholastic problems.  The mother, who was not home at the time the father left the note, charged the husband with trespass, and obtained a temporary domestic violence restraining order prohibiting him from having any contact with her or their son.  The father elected to represent himself at the final restraining order hearing.  During the trial, the mother did not testify, call any witnesses or produce the note as evidence.  The father was not given an opportunity to fully testify, and was only permitted to answer the Judge’s questions.  After questioning the father, the Judge entered a Final Restraining Order prohibiting him from having any contact with his ex-wife or the parties’ son.  The ex-wife then filed a motion to increase child support based upon the fact that she now had full custody of the parties’ son.  After retaining the firm, Brian G. Paul, Esq. filed an emergent appeal on the father’s behalf arguing that the trial court had unlawfully violated the father’s constitutional right to custody of his son without due process of law.  The granting of an emergent appeal is extraordinary relief that is rarely awarded except in situations where a party successfully demonstrates that they may be irreparably harmed.  Normally, the appellate process takes over a year to complete, whereas an emergent appeal may be decided in as little as a few days.  Brian argued that the Trial Court violated the father’s due process rights by not providing the father an opportunity to cross-examine his accuser, testify in detail or call any witnesses.  He further argued that the restricting of the father’s right to see his son constituted irreparable harm, because the potentially irreversibly damage could not be satisfied with monetary damages.  The Appellate Division agreed with Brian’s arguments, and summarily reversed the Final Restraining Order with instructions that a new trial be conducted immediately.  After the alleged victim testified at the new trial, the Trial Court granted Brian’s motion to dismiss the complaint, agreeing that the ex-wife had failed to demonstrate that the father had committed an act of domestic violence warranting the entry of a final restraining order.

            Inquiries to the Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein, Blader & Lehmann, P.C. family law department should be directed to Brian G. Paul, Esq. at his office at (609) 275-0400, or via email to bpaul@szaferman.com.