NJ DCP&P v. A.O.J.
The Appellate Division probably intended this opinion to caution judges more than attorneys. In NJ DCP&P v. A.O.J., DCP&P filed a complaint to terminate AOJ’s parental rights regarding her two
The Appellate Division probably intended this opinion to caution judges more than attorneys. In NJ DCP&P v. A.O.J., DCP&P filed a complaint to terminate AOJ’s parental rights regarding her two
Ileiwat (“Wife”) and Labadi (“Husband”) appealed from the trial court’s order resolving the economic issues related to the Jordanian divorce decree that terminated the parties’ marriage. On appeal, Husband argued that,
This appeal involved an investigation into a claim that a mother, S.C., abused her seven-year-old son. The Department of Children and Families (Department) concluded, after its investigation, that the claim
Mother appealed the trial court’s orders involuntarily terminating her parental rights to her daughter. The Superior Court reversed. The Court ruled that the trial court’s factual findings were not supported
The defendant in a divorce action was determined to be disabled by the Social Security Administration. Relying on Gilligan v. Gilligan, 428 N.J. Super. 69 (Ch. Div. 2012), the Appellate
The plaintiff was granted a temporary restraining order and, after a contested hearing, was awarded a final restraining order (FRO). At issue was whether the plaintiff could establish a “dating
#FamilyLaw #Custody 04/14/20- J.S. (“Father”) appealed from the order, awarding sole legal and primary physical custody of the parties’ daughter, A.S. (“Child”), to R.S.S. (“Mother”). Father argued that the trial
Copyright Sullivan Simon.
All rights reserved.