"Jersey's Talking" Information Page

title cover

Brought to you by, Marlene Browne, attorney and author of, The Boomer's Guide to Divorce: And a New Life.

The twelve infamous "NEWBURGH v. ARRIGO" factors for COLLEGE costs

In evaluating the claim for contribution toward the cost of higher education, courts should consider all relevant factors, per the case of Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982), including:

  1. whether the parent, if still living with the child, would have contributed toward the costs of the requested higher education;
  2. the effect of the background values 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.

To see how the NJ courts consider and weigh the factors described in Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982), see, Gaynell Gac (aka Gaynell Ciccarelli) v. Paul Ludwig Gac, decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on May 18, 2006 (A-9-05)--N.J.-- (2006).

Relocation AFTER divorce? What to do?

In the case, Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001), the NJ Supreme Court clarified the legal standards that should apply when addressing a removal application, and what role visitation plays in that determination. It announced twelve factors a court must assess before making a determination. These are the twelve factors:

  1. reasons for the move;
  2. reasons for the opposition;
  3. past history of dealings between the parties as bears on the reasons for and against the move;
  4. whether the child will receive comparable educational, health, and leisure opportunities;
  5. any special needs or talents of the child that require accommodation and whether such accommodation is available in the new location;
  6. 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;
  7. the likelihood that the custodial parent will continue to foster the relationship of the child with the noncustodial parent;
  8. the effect of the move on extended family relationships;
  9. if the child is of age, his or her preference;
  10. whether the child is entering senior year in high school;
  11. whether the noncustodial parent has the ability to relocate; and
  12. any other factor bearing on the child's interest.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that not all factors will be relevant or equally weighted. To see how the NJ courts consider and weigh these factors read the case, Baures v. Lewis. But beware, in a shared physical custody case (where both parents spend almost equal physical time with the child), the Appellate Division ruled on March 27, 2002, in the case of O'Connor v. O'Connor, 349 N.J. Super. 381 (2002), that an entirely different approach applies!

Plus, as of June 27, 2003, in the case of Schulze v. Morris, f/k/a Schulze, 361 N.J. Super. 419 (2003), the Appellate Division ruled that a joint legal, residential custodial parent's relocation--with the child--to another in-state location may constitute a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of the existing custodial and parenting-time arrangement.

Grandparent visitation in NJ after the US Supreme Ct case: Troxel v. Granville

To see how the NJ courts address the issue of third party (including grandparents and siblings) visitation in a family setting, see, Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84 (2003), in which Grandparents, won the right to seek visitation with their grandchildren under NJ's Grandparent Visitation Statute, N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1.

Setting the amount of child support--at time of, or after--divorce

To see how the NJ Supreme Court determined, on January 27, 2005, that you are never too rich to retire, at least when child support is at issue, see Caplan v. Caplan, 182 N.J. 250 (2005).

Dealing with alimony--at time of, or after--divorce

To see how the NJ courts address the statutory criteria for permanent and limited duration alimony, at the time of divorce, as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, see, Cox v. Cox, 335 N.J. Super. 465 (App. Div. 2000).

To see how the NJ Supreme Court determined that the marital standard of living should be the "measure" for assessing initial awards of alimony--and for reviewing any motion to modify alimony thereafter--see Crews v. Crews, 164 N.J. 11 (2000). But, in Weishaus v. Weishaus, 180 N.J. 131 (2004), the NJ Supreme Court clarified its ruling in Crews v. Crews, by holding that a trial court has the discretion not to make a finding as to a couple's matrimonial standard of living (MSOL), if the case is uncontested, yet involves a provision for support.

To see how the NJ Supreme Court decided, on April 6, 2005, that marital fault was not relevant to an alimony award (except in two distinct circumstances) or a counsel fee award, see, Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70 (2005).

Dealing with a business in divorce

To see how the NJ courts address valuation issues of a closely held (or "family") business in the context of a divorce action see, Brown v. Brown, 348 N.J. Super. 466 (App. Div. 2002), denied cert. by the NJ Supreme Ct, July 16, 2002.

Computers, E-mail, and Discovery in the context of DIVORCE

In White v. White, 344 N.J. Super. 211, 781 A.2d 85 (Ch. Div. 2001), a New Jersey trial court held that the state's wiretap statute was not violated by a wife's retrieval of E-mails between her husband and his paramour from a computer the husband kept in the marital residence during the divorce action. Why is this legal? According to the court, the law prohibits interception of messages in the process of transmission, NOT obtaining files, or copies of messages or E-mails that had already been sent or received. Hiring a PI to recover material on the husband's computer's hard disk was apparently OK as well!

More New Jersey legal resources for "JT" viewers:


This Web site provides links to information that is already available to the public. No attorney-client relationship is established by your use of this site. See an attorney in your jurisdiction to learn how the cases and court rules and statutes linked here might or might not apply to your matter. Remember, court rules, laws, and cases are always subject to change, so make sure you check with local counsel before doing anything that could compromise your position. And, my book, The Boomer's Guide to Divorce: And a New Life, however generally informative, is not meant to be, nor can it substitute for, personal legal advice in your highly specific matter. As this book describes in detail, the law is always changing, and to make sure you get--or keep--what is rightfully yours; you MUST continually check the law in your state, and get advice tailor-made for the facts of your case (even if it's just one time) from a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.



If you're so inclined, send a note to Lee Leonard and say "hi."

Table of Contents
Media and Photos
Home Page
The Boomer's Guide to Divorce: And a New Life
© 2004-2015. Marlene M. Browne. All Rights Reserved.