Chapter One Part Six: Trial Justice or Just a Mess? A Costly Custody Battle Fueled by Rambling, Red Tape, and Questionable Discretion

Custody Trial Summary

Opening Position:At the start of the trial, I maintained the presumption of joint legal custody, as outlined in NJ Code 9:2-4, while the opposing party sought full legal custody. Given that 50/50 legal custody is the state's presumption, the burden of proof was on her to present compelling evidence justifying sole legal custody.

Court Proceedings:The judge initially considered professional intervention but later retracted that suggestion—an important foreshadowing moment. The opposing party provided lengthy testimony with little substantive evidence, and my attorney objected multiple times to the excessive and irrelevant statements. However, the judge allowed her to continue.

During her testimony, she deviated from custody issues, discussing personal matters, including her desire for a relationship. The judge, rather than addressing the lack of evidence supporting sole custody, shifted focus toward co-parenting therapy.

My attorney argued against an unnecessary custody evaluation, emphasizing that if the opposing party wished to pursue sole custody, she should bear the cost. The judge ultimately conceded.

Key Cross-Examination Points:

• The opposing party used breastfeeding as the primary reason to restrict my parenting time. Under cross-examination, she admitted that there was no medical necessity for this limitation—just her personal choice.

• The issue of overnights became contentious, as my attorney and I had previously discussed seeking additional parenting time, yet in court, my attorney unexpectedly altered the approach.

Child Support Determination:

• I provided all required financial documentation, while the opposing party submitted nothing. She openly stated that she could work but simply chose not to.

• The court imputed her income at $20,000 and mine at $25,000 but misinterpreted my business taxes, leading to an erroneous assumption about my earnings.

• Despite the small income difference of $5,000, child support was calculated at $104 per week ($5,408 per year)—108% of the actual income disparity, a disproportionately high percentage.

Final Ruling & Observations:

• My monthly parenting time was reduced from 56 hours to 52 hours.

• The judge acknowledged various issues but appeared to believe they could be resolved over time.

• The legal costs were staggering—over $12,500—due to the opposing party’s refusal to cooperate, resulting in an unnecessary trial.

Reflection on the Judge’s Discretion:

• Was the ruling fair? The judge seemed to allow excessive discretion, particularly in handling irrelevant testimony.

• Was too much discretion used? The financial determinations and refusal to limit unnecessary proceedings suggest potential overreach.

• Final Thoughts: The process highlights how one party’s refusal to compromise can lead to prolonged litigation, excessive costs, and judicial decisions that may not align with legal presumptions.

"parental alienation","Custody","Paternity","attorney","Father's Rights","law","lawyer","child support","family law","child custody lawyer","FATHERS RIGHTS",child custody,divorce,parental alienation,new jersey lawyer,new jersey divorce law,new jersey family law