Search This Site
Contact Joe Noto For A…NJ Divorce, Divorce Mediation, or NJ Collaborative Divorce
(By appointment only)
Wyckoff, Bergen CountyJoseph C. Noto, Esq.
260 Godwin Avenue
Wyckoff, New Jersey 07481
Hackensack, Bergen CountyJoseph C. Noto, Esq.
335A Main Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Verona, Essex CountyJoseph C. Noto, Esq.
155 Pompton Ave., Suite 206
Verona, NJ 07044
Totowa, Passaic CountyAt the law offices of Robert B. Cherry 195 Route 46 West Suite 6 Totowa, NJ 07512
Call 201-847-0814Schedule your NJ divorce mediation or collaborative divorce FREE introductory consultation.
Just A Thought
"The secret of health for both mind and body is not to mourn for the past, worry about the future, or anticipate troubles, but to live in the present moment wisely and earnestly."
Category Archives: New Cases
Joseph C. Noto, a Bergen County divorce lawyer, thought you would be interested in the recent case regarding who can and can not be be a caregiver of a child in NJ. In “New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. J.S., App. Div. (Sabatino, J.A.D.) (32 pp.) Defendant, a biological father, appeals from the Family Part’s judgment terminating his parental rights as to his minor child following a multiday trial. Among other things, defendant argues that the trial court erred in upholding a decision of the Division of Youth and Family Services to “rule out” two cousins who had expressed interest in serving as alternative caregivers for the child. Affirming the final judgment, we reject defendant’s argument that the division lacks the authority to rule out relatives under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12.1 based on considerations of a child’s best interests. Instead, we hold that the applicable statutory provisions and a related regulation, N.J.A.C. 10:120A-3.1, allow the division to rule out a relative on such best-interests grounds, regardless of the relative’s willingness or ability to care for a child. However, the division’s rule-out authority is always subject to the Family Part’s ultimate assessment of that child’s best interests. We also uphold the validity of the language in N.J.A.C. 10:120A-3.1(b) prohibiting a relative who the division rules out on best-interests grounds from pursuing an administrative appeal of that agency determination. However, we urge the division to act with reasonable diligence in notifying a potential caretaker that he or she has been ruled out, once the investigation of that person has been completed.” Joseph Noto says people should bear this case in mind: that the best interest of the child applies when determening a caregiver.
Joseph C. Noto, a divorce lawyer in Bergen County wants those parents that have a special need trust to see the latest case on this matter. In J.B. v. W.B., Sup. Ct. (Cuff, P.J.A.D.) (16 pp.) A parent seeking to modify … Continue reading
Joseph C. Noto, a Bergen County divorce lawyer, wants to let you know that if you are going through a divorce and alimony is an issue, that duration of the alimony will arise. When is it a permanent alimony case? … Continue reading
Joseph C. Noto, a Bergen county Divorce Lawyer, wants the payor of alimony to know of the recent case regarding a change in circumstance as it relates to cohabiation and alimony. A Divorcee, whose Live-in Boy friend perked up lifestyle, loses alimony. A divorcee’s plush lifestyle provided by her paramour can be considered when her ex seeks alimony reduction, a state appeals court held on Tuesday in a precedential ruling. The Appellate Division, in Reese v. Weis, A-5557-10, turned aside arguments that the gifts and luxuries lavished by the woman’s live-in lover were outside the equation. “We reject this view and hold that the provision of emoluments, which enhance a dependent spouse’s lifestyle, also equate to a tangible economic benefit from the new living arrangement,” the panel held. At issue in this matter is whether defendant received a substantial economic benefit as a result of her cohabitation, such that alimony should be terminated. They concluded that the inquiry regarding whether an economic benefit arises in the context of cohabitation must consider not only the actual financial assistance resulting from the new relationship, but also may weigh other enhancements to the dependent spouse’s standard of living that directly result from cohabitation. The court also finds that a trial judge’s exercise of discretion when determining whether to modify or terminate alimony may properly evaluate the duration of the new relationship and assess its similarities to the fidelity associated with marriage. Bergen county divorce attorney, Joseph Noto, says that payors should see a divorce attorney if they are in a similar circumstance and seek a temination of alimony if that is the case.