Family Lawyer New Jersey Child Support Modification Case

The client finalized an uncontested divorce approximately one year prior, with the parties agreeing that the client would have primary physical custody of the child while receiving monthly child support set at a fixed amount.

At the time of divorce, the support amount reflected both the child’s living expenses and concessions made by the custodial parent regarding other financial claims, creating a balanced settlement structure.

Despite this agreement, the noncustodial parent later filed a child support modification petition alleging reduced income and asserting that prior payments functioned as general living expenses rather than true child support.

The petition raised three central issues: whether the claimed financial hardship was genuine and permanent, whether the parties resumed a marital-like relationship after divorce, and whether reducing support aligned with the child’s best interests.

Counsel structured the defense to show that the alleged income reduction lacked supporting documentation, that no stable post-divorce cohabitation existed, and that the child remained financially dependent on the existing support structure.

By aligning factual evidence with judicial expectations for modification cases, the defense reframed the matter as an improper attempt to escape agreed obligations rather than a legitimate request for adjustment.

The petitioner asserted that post-divorce interactions constituted a de facto marital relationship, arguing that support payments were actually shared household expenses.

The defense presented communication records, residential documentation, and timelines demonstrating that any post-divorce contact was brief, non-exclusive, and lacked the permanence required to alter financial obligations.

Evidence further showed that the parties maintained separate finances, residences, and decision-making authority, directly contradicting the petitioner’s attempt to reframe child support as voluntary living assistance.

The petition relied heavily on generalized claims of economic difficulty without corroborating records such as tax returns, employment termination notices, or medical incapacity documentation.

A family lawyer New Jersey emphasized that voluntary employment changes or speculative income reduction do not justify child support modification under New Jersey practice.

The court was presented with a clear comparison between prior earning capacity and current financial behavior, highlighting inconsistencies and undermining the credibility of the hardship claim.