NJ & CT News

The father, unhappy with Schofel's performance, lodged 20 formal grievances against her and demanded her recusal. Along with her other fees, Schofel charged him $33,304 for the 100 hours it took to prepare her 88-page response to his complaints, and another $5,000 for the time she spent opposing his motions. This, along with the regular fees she charged for her parent-coordinating services, brought the total owed by the father up to $51,000. Without holding a hearing, Morris County Superior Court Judge Thomas Weisenbeck upheld the fees Schofel charged, finding that the father's grievances were both unreasonable and without merit. That ruling was upheld on appeal. The state's highest court is now deciding whether those rulings were correct.

Despite Negative Paternity Test, Man Is Child's Father

Declaring that a “scientific test is not the functional equivalent of a court order; nor does a paternity test negating paternity automatically result in a court order of non-parentage,” a New Jersey appeals panel has determined a man can assume sole custody of his wife's child, without an adoption. The mother of the subject child in N.J. Division of Youth and Family Services v. D.S.H., A-5723-10, was deemed unfit, though her parental rights were never formally cut off because her four-year-old daughter remained emotionally attached to her. The mother's husband, who was estranged from the woman at the time the child was taken from the home, learned after these proceedings began that he was not the child's biological father. He was, however, married to the mother at the time of the child's birth and his name was on the birth certificate. After several efforts to reunify the child with her mother failed, the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) moved to terminate the mother's parental rights ' not because there was no hope for a beneficial relationship between the child and her mother, but in order that the girl could be freed for adoption by her mother's husband. The court rejected this proposal, deeming it in the girl's best interest to continue to have meaningful contact with her mother. It noted that the purpose of terminating parental rights in this case was to free the child for adoption, despite the harm that permanent separation from her mother would cause. However, the court said this was not necessary: As the man seeking custody was married to the mother at the time of the child's birth, he was the girl's legal father under New Jersey law, and a negative paternity test did not negate that. “[P]arenthood is not merely biological determination,” wrote the court. The mother's husband was the child's parent by virtue of his marital status at the time of her birth, and the facts that he was named as father on the birth certificate and had assumed a continuous and ongoing parental role.

CONNECTICUT

Court May Order Return of Marital Funds

The Appellate Court of Connecticut has held that a court may order the return of marital funds withdrawn prior to a divorce filing if they are still controlled by the spouse concealing them. The case is Parlato v. Parlato, 134 Conn. App. 848 (4/17/12), where the husband withdrew $250,000 from the parties' joint home equity line of credit four weeks before his wife served him with a complaint seeking dissolution of the marriage. A month after the husband was served, the wife moved for an order pendente lite for the return of the $250,000 to the marital estate. That motion was granted, as the court did not believe the husband's claim that he had used the money to pay his children back for losses he had incurred 11 years prior, when he made bad investments with monies he held in his name for their benefit. He was ordered not only to return the funds, but also to desist from sequestering marital assets.

When the husband missed the deadline for returning the $250,000, the court found him in contempt. He appealed, claiming the trial court was without authority to issue the order, due to the fact that the contested funds were withdrawn prior to the commencement of the dissolution action. The appeals court sided with the lower court, determining that that court had a sound basis for its conclusion that the husband had not given the money to his children and still retained control over the $250,000. As such, he was still hiding it from his wife. “Although the defendant's attempt at concealment and protection began before the automatic orders took effect, it continued after the orders were in place and, therefore, was a violation of those orders,” stated the appeals court.

NEW JERSEY

High Court to Decide if Party Must Pay for Defense of His Grievances

New Jersey's Supreme Court is considering whether a man who lodged numerous grievances against a court-appointed parenting coordinator may be compelled to pay the coordinator for her services and for the defense of those complaints. The court enlisted parent coordinator Linda Schofel to assist in a custody case involving a wealthy Canadian man and his common-law wife, who has now moved to New Jersey with the couple's two children. Schofel, who is not only a licensed social worker but also an attorney with Newman, McDonough, Schofel & Giger in Roseland, NJ, charges $325 per hour ' an amount that, according to a three-way retainer agreement, was to be paid in equal shares by the two parents, unless Schofel determined that one of them was abusing the process.

The father, unhappy with Schofel's performance, lodged 20 formal grievances against her and demanded her recusal. Along with her other fees, Schofel charged him $33,304 for the 100 hours it took to prepare her 88-page response to his complaints, and another $5,000 for the time she spent opposing his motions. This, along with the regular fees she charged for her parent-coordinating services, brought the total owed by the father up to $51,000. Without holding a hearing, Morris County Superior Court Judge Thomas Weisenbeck upheld the fees Schofel charged, finding that the father's grievances were both unreasonable and without merit. That ruling was upheld on appeal. The state's highest court is now deciding whether those rulings were correct.

Despite Negative Paternity Test, Man Is Child's Father

Declaring that a “scientific test is not the functional equivalent of a court order; nor does a paternity test negating paternity automatically result in a court order of non-parentage,” a New Jersey appeals panel has determined a man can assume sole custody of his wife's child, without an adoption. The mother of the subject child in N.J. Division of Youth and Family Services v. D.S.H., A-5723-10, was deemed unfit, though her parental rights were never formally cut off because her four-year-old daughter remained emotionally attached to her. The mother's husband, who was estranged from the woman at the time the child was taken from the home, learned after these proceedings began that he was not the child's biological father. He was, however, married to the mother at the time of the child's birth and his name was on the birth certificate. After several efforts to reunify the child with her mother failed, the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) moved to terminate the mother's parental rights ' not because there was no hope for a beneficial relationship between the child and her mother, but in order that the girl could be freed for adoption by her mother's husband. The court rejected this proposal, deeming it in the girl's best interest to continue to have meaningful contact with her mother. It noted that the purpose of terminating parental rights in this case was to free the child for adoption, despite the harm that permanent separation from her mother would cause. However, the court said this was not necessary: As the man seeking custody was married to the mother at the time of the child's birth, he was the girl's legal father under New Jersey law, and a negative paternity test did not negate that. “[P]arenthood is not merely biological determination,” wrote the court. The mother's husband was the child's parent by virtue of his marital status at the time of her birth, and the facts that he was named as father on the birth certificate and had assumed a continuous and ongoing parental role.

CONNECTICUT

Court May Order Return of Marital Funds

The Appellate Court of Connecticut has held that a court may order the return of marital funds withdrawn prior to a divorce filing if they are still controlled by the spouse concealing them. The case is Parlato v. Parlato , 134 Conn. App. 848 (4/17/12), where the husband withdrew $250,000 from the parties' joint home equity line of credit four weeks before his wife served him with a complaint seeking dissolution of the marriage. A month after the husband was served, the wife moved for an order pendente lite for the return of the $250,000 to the marital estate. That motion was granted, as the court did not believe the husband's claim that he had used the money to pay his children back for losses he had incurred 11 years prior, when he made bad investments with monies he held in his name for their benefit. He was ordered not only to return the funds, but also to desist from sequestering marital assets.

When the husband missed the deadline for returning the $250,000, the court found him in contempt. He appealed, claiming the trial court was without authority to issue the order, due to the fact that the contested funds were withdrawn prior to the commencement of the dissolution action. The appeals court sided with the lower court, determining that that court had a sound basis for its conclusion that the husband had not given the money to his children and still retained control over the $250,000. As such, he was still hiding it from his wife. “Although the defendant's attempt at concealment and protection began before the automatic orders took effect, it continued after the orders were in place and, therefore, was a violation of those orders,” stated the appeals court.