Statistics have shown that the rate of cohabitation has increased markedly in the United States in the last ten years. If you are cohabiting as a prelude to a marriage or a civil union which will take place in the foreseeable future, then this blog doesn’t apply to you. However, we are increasingly seeing clients who have been living together for five, ten and even fifteen years with no intention of entering into a marriage or a civil union. In those relationships, the parties view their cohabitation as the essence and the goal of their long term relationship, opting out of a marriage or a civil union altogether.
The income of both parties is one of the most important factors that is included in the calculation of child support. The state of New Jersey has uniform guidelines, however the guidelines do not apply to high income cases. High income cases are defined as cases in which the parents’ combined net annual income is in excess of $187,200 per year. Net income is defined as gross income minus income taxes, mandatory union dues, mandatory retirement continuations, previously ordered child support orders, and when appropriate a child support obligation for other dependents (a child or children from other relationships).
Income for child support purposes is defined as all earned and unearned income that is recurring or that will increase the income available to the recipient over an extended period of time. To determine whether an income source will be included in the child support calculation, the Court will assess whether the income would have been available to pay expenses related to the child if the family was still intact. If the income would have been available to pay those expenses, it is likely that it will be included in the child support calculation. Income for child support calculations is not just limited to wages; among other things, it will include gains from the sale of property, dividends paid, rent collected, bonuses, alimony, social security, retirement account income, unemployment and disability income.
In those cases in which the parents’ combined net income from all sources is more than $187,200 net per year, the first step in calculating the amount of child support is to apply the guidelines up to the highest level available, i.e. $187,200 in combined net income. This child support figure is called the “basic child support figure.” Then, an additional amount is added to the “basic child support figure” to account for the remaining family income. In other words, the “basic child support figure” is the minimum child support award for these families.
The additional amount added to the “basic child support figure” is discretionary and based on statutory factors which include:
(1) Needs of the child;
(2) Standard of living and economic circumstances of each parent;
(3) All sources of income and assets of each parent;
(4) Earning ability of each parent, including educational background, training, employment skills, work experience, custodial responsibility for children including the cost of providing child care and the length of time and cost of each parent to obtain training or experience for appropriate employment;
(5) Need and capacity of the child for education, including higher education;
(6) Age and health of the child and each parent;
(7) Income, assets and earning ability of the child;
(8) Responsibility of the parents for the court-ordered support of others;
(9) Reasonable debts and liabilities of each child and parent; and
(10) Any other factors the court may deem relevant.
The court has a great deal of discretion as to the amount that is ultimately added to the “basic child support figure.” However, the basic premise remains the same: that every child has the right to be financially supported by both parents and if one or both parents are successful, the children have a right to share in that good fortune.
Hugh McNeil was a long-time police officer for the Township of South Brunswick. On April 3, 2010, McNeil responded to an emergency call. He was wearing his bulletproof vest and gun belt and said that he hurriedly exited his vehicle, feeling pain in his back. He said he might have hit the steering wheel but was not sure. Later that day he went to the hospital for treatment and reported the incident to his supervisor.
The question is an important one and comes down to this: is the reassignment process competitive?
Courts are split on the issue with the most recent decision coming in EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., 673 F.3d 543, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4713 (7th Cir. 2012). The case involved United Airlines’ company policy, which does not automatically place a disabled employee into a vacant position. The company instead would allow an unlimited number of transfer applications, a guarantee of an interview and priority consideration over applicants who are similarly qualified. But it would not reassign a disabled employee to a position if there were more qualified applicants for that position. The EEOC challenged the policy.
The statute of limitations is jurisdictional and nothing, other than perhaps insanity, relieves a claimant from the rule
All states have statutes of limitations for filing compensation claims. But are these statutes flexible under certain circumstance? The answer in New Jersey is emphatically no.