In a perfect world, both parents would gladly share the costs for their children’s college education. Unfortunately, the harsh reality of a divorce often raises the question whether parents have a legal obligation to pay for their children’s education.

In many cases, New Jersey courts will order the noncustodial parent to help pay for college. In fact, in New Jersey, even if there is no relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent, the non-custodial parent can still be ordered to provide financial assistance to defray college expenses.

The relationship between the parent and the child is only one of twelve factors a court must consider. While it is a factor, there must be a fair balancing of all twelve factors to determine whether a parent should contribute to college expenses and, if so, to what extent.

In New Jersey, the factors to be considered when assessing a claim for college contribution are as follows:

1. Whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed toward the cost of the requested higher education;
2. The effect of the background, value and goals of the parent on the reasonableness of the expectation of the child for higher education;
3. The amount of the contribution sought by the child for the cost of higher education;
4. The ability of the parent to pay that cost;
5. The relationship of the requested contribution to the kind of school or course of study sought by the child;
6. The financial resources of both parents;
7. The commitment to and aptitude of the child for the requested education;
8. The financial resources of the child including assets owned individually or held in custodianship or trust;
9. The ability of the child to earn income during the school year or on vacation;
10. The availability of financial aid in the form of college grants and loans;
11. The child’s relationship to the paying parent, including mutual affection and shared goals as well as responsiveness to parental advice and guidance; and
12. The relationship of the education requested to any prior training and to the overall long-range goals of the child.

New Jersey courts have held that a former spouse was not required to contribute toward his daughter’s college education and expenses when neither the custodial parent nor the child made a request for financial assistance prior to selection of a college and, in fact, only made the request after she graduated.

Thus, New Jersey courts prefer that a parent or child seeking contribution toward the expenses of a higher education will make the request before the expenses are incurred. The courts have held that as soon as practical, the parent of the child should communicate with the other parent concerning the many issues inherent in selecting a college. At a minimum, a parent or child seeking contribution should initiate the application to the court before the expenses are incurred. The failure to do so will weigh heavily against the grant of a future application.

In another case, a former spouse was not required to contribute toward his child’s college education when the daughter and former spouse totally ignored the father in the choice and cost of college and simply presented the bill. The father should be consulted in advance, so that he can have input in seeking loans, evaluating the appropriateness of the school, etc.

One other factor to consider in New Jersey is that the noncustodial parent’s obligation to pay child support for the college student remains unaffected by any determination of whether the student has an obligation to contribute to his own college expenses. The courts have held that the obligation to provide for a child’s support will not be obviated by the noncustodial parent’s failure to maintain ties with his child or lessened due to the custodial parent’s interference with parenting time.

Although there may be situations where the estrangement may relieve the non-custodial parent from paying for college, the non-custodial parent must continue to pay child support for a child who is in college.

Related articles

• Coping with New Jersey Child Custody Relocation Laws (woolcockpatton.com)
• Set limits when paying for college (belifestylemagazine.com)
• Custodial Parents Becoming Less Likely to Receive Full Amount of Child Support, Census Bureau Reports (prnewswire.com)

There are some criminal cases where the more common criminal defenses — mistaken identity, justification, or lack of knowledge or intent — just don’t apply.

Take the case of a defendant who was persuaded by a government informant to buy ten kilograms of cocaine.  The informant, who was trying to avoid deportation by turning in drug dealers, met with this man regularly for over a year and a half, trying to persuade him to invest in a drug deal. Ultimately, the man, who had never been involved in any criminal activity, reluctantly agreed.  The informant then secretly recorded a couple of meetings with his victim in which the plan to buy the cocaine was discussed. Subsequently, the informant took the man with him to buy the cocaine from an undercover federal agent.  Of course, the man was arrested on the spot.

In that case, the informant didn’t uncover a drug conspiracy, he created one.

The evidence against the defendant was overwhelming.  The informant testified about his meetings with the defendant, without mentioning the many meetings in which the defendant said he was not interested.  The prosecutor played the tapes of the defendant ultimately agreeing to participate in the deal, and the undercover officer testified about meeting with the defendant to sell him the drugs.

Yet the defendant still had a defense: entrapment.

In federal court in New Jersey, a defendant may not be convicted of a crime if he was entrapped by the government to do the acts charged.  The government is permitted to use undercover agents, deception and other means of providing opportunities for an unwary criminally minded person to commit a crime, but the law does not permit the government to induce an unwary innocent person into committing a criminal offense.

The defense of entrapment has three basic parts.  First, the government, either through an informant or an undercover agent, must have some part in setting up the crime.  If a person not associated with the government persuades someone to commit a crime, the defense of entrapment does not apply, although there may be other defenses, such as coercion or duress.

Second, the government must have induced the defendant to commit the offense. Inducement may take many forms: persuasion, fraudulent representations, threats, coercive tactics, harassment, promises of reward or pleas based on need, sympathy or friendship.  It has to be more than simply approaching the person and offering them the opportunity to become involved.

Third, the defendant cannot have been predisposed to commit the offense. That often involves a question of whether he has ever shown any interest in such an offense in the past or whether he has any prior convictions for related or similar offenses.

Obviously, entrapment is a last line of defense. It’s a defense that only comes up when the defendant is forced by the evidence to admit that “yes, I committed the crime, but I was entrapped.”

For the defense to have any chance, the evidence of persuasion must be strong.

Finally, a jury evaluating this defense usually asks itself, “if this informant approached me, would I have become involved?”  If the answer is no, the defense fails.

That raises the last element that has to be presented to the jury in order to build a defense of entrapment.  The defense needs to show the jury why the defendant decided to become involved, so that they can picture themselves doing the same thing under the same circumstances.  If there is evidence that the defendant found himself in a financial crisis, for example, that evidence should be developed and presented to the jury.

Although it is a last line of defense, entrapment is a defense that needs to be considered when the evidence is overwhelming.

One of the most devastating issues that can arise in a divorce, for a family from Livingston, New Jersey – the mother, the father and the children – is when one parent asks for child custody relocation out of state.

This problem can arise before the divorce is entered, but it often comes up after the divorce is final.

People may want child custody relocation for any number of reasons – a better job, emotional support from their family, lower expenses. And although ideally, after a divorce, parents remain near each other and close toLivingston, New Jersey so the child may have regular access to both, that ideal is not always the reality, especially in these difficult economic times.

And whatever the reason for the move, a move out of state makes it much more difficult for children to maintain close and regular contact with both of their parents.

To the extent possible, children should have equal access to both parents.  Parents are sources of security and love for a child, and a child has a right to continue to develop a meaningful relationship with each parent. The severance of the ties to either parent is contrary to a child’s best interest.

Under New Jersey law, a child may not be relocated out of the state unless either parents’ consent or a court issues an order permitting removal.

The office of James Patton Law, located in Livingston, New Jersey, has dealt with many child custody relocation cases and one of the first questions in any case where a parent seeks to relocate out of state with the child is whether or not the parents truly share custody. Truly shared custody means not only that each parent has close to an equal time with the child, but that they each participate equally in the care of the child.  If custody is truly shared, the party seeking to move out of state must prove that it is in the best interests of the child to move. In most cases, the parent seeking removal cannot prove that and removal would be denied.

On the other hand, if the parent seeking child custody relocation is the primary caretaker, all he or she has to prove is that there is a good faith reason for the move and that the move will not be harmful to the child.  That is a much easier test to meet and as a result, in those cases, removal is generally granted.

Because the nature of the shared custody is an important factor in determining whether a child can be relocated, it is important to fight for the type of custody that is needed before a divorce is entered, if future relocation is a concern.

In the end, there is rarely an easy answer or even an entirely satisfactory one to the problem of child custody relocation. If removal is denied, the custodial parent who was seeking to move may be embittered by the assault on his or her autonomy.  If it is granted, the noncustodial parent may live with the abiding belief that his or her connection to the child has been lost forever. And if one parent has to move away from Livingston, New Jersey, with or without the child, the child faces the difficulty of maintaining a close tie to that parent regardless of whether the court permits or denies a motion to relocate.

In dealing with these issues, New Jersey courts are rightly concerned about preserving a child’s connection to both parents.  Court’s consider not only the opportunities available for the child in the new location, but whether a visitation and communication schedule can be developed that will allow the noncustodial parent to maintain a full and continuous relationship with the child; the effect of the move on extended family relationships here and in the new location and any other factor bearing on the child’s interest.

In attempting to preserve a child’s relationship with both parents after relocation, a parenting plan should be considered that would give the non-custodial parent longer blocks of parenting time during holidays and summers, as well as frequent weekends.  Additionally, webcams can be used to give the child regular access to the non-custodial parent.

Related articles

• What is a child custody investigator (wiki.answers.com)