PAUL A. REAGAN VS. JENNIFER L. RYAN (FM-01-995-11, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3609-15T2
PAUL A. REAGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JENNIFER L. RYAN,
Defendant-Respondent.
Submitted May 16, 2017 – Decided June 6, 2017
Before Judges Koblitz and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,
Atlantic County, Docket No. FM-01-995-11.
Cynthia Ann Brassington, attorney for
appellant.
Jennifer L. Ryan, respondent pro se.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from a March 18, 2016 order denying his
motion to recalculate child support.1 We affirm.
The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed. The parties
entered into a Consent Final Judgment of Divorce (JOD) on July 31,
2012. The JOD provided that the parties share joint legal custody
of their daughter, Z.R., born February 10, 2006. Plaintiff was
designated as the parent of primary residence. Defendant was
allowed two overnights per week from 4:00 p.m. on Sunday until
7:00 p.m. on Tuesday. In addition, defendant was permitted one
weeknight dinner with Z.R. The JOD provided that child support
would be calculated upon the expiration of plaintiff's payment of
limited duration alimony.
When plaintiff's alimony obligation terminated, plaintiff
filed a motion to calculate child support. By order dated December
9, 2014, Judge Michael J. Blee required defendant to pay $10.00
per week in child support. Judge Blee calculated child support
using a shared parenting worksheet despite plaintiff's argument
that a shared parenting worksheet was inappropriate because
1
Plaintiff's motion sought other relief as well. However,
plaintiff's appeal is limited to the denial of recalculated child
support.
2 A-3609-15T2
defendant did not have separate sleeping accommodations for Z.R. 2
In calculating child support, the judge considered plaintiff's
non-taxable annual pension of $58,588.08, plus plaintiff's annual
gross taxable income of $26,930.66, and defendant's annual gross
income of $23,425.00.
Both parents resided in Atlantic County from the date of the
JOD until September 2015. In 2015, plaintiff moved from Atlantic
County to Burlington County. In February 2016, plaintiff filed a
motion requesting the following relief: modification of the
parenting schedule based upon plaintiff's relocation to Burlington
County; modification of child support due to defendant's increased
earnings; and transfer of venue to Burlington County.
On March 18, 2016, Judge Jeffrey D. Light granted plaintiff's
motion in part. The judge modified defendant's parenting schedule
to allow Z.R. to spend three weekends per month with defendant and
additional summer vacation time. Judge Light denied plaintiff's
motion to recalculate child support and transfer venue.
Because the judge reduced defendant's parenting time to three
weekends per month, the number of overnights exercised by defendant
decreased from 104 overnights per year to 72 overnights per year.
Judge Light calculated child support using a shared parenting
2
Defendant was living in a two-bedroom condominium with her
mother.
3 A-3609-15T2
worksheet and, based upon the parties' financial information,
determined that defendant did not have a child support obligation.
However, the judge ordered defendant to continue payment of child
support at $10.00 per week because parents have a statutory
obligation to provide child support to the best of each parent's
ability.
In calculating child support, Judge Light took into
consideration that plaintiff moved from Atlantic County to
Burlington County, a distance of approximately fifty miles.
Plaintiff's unilateral move necessarily affected the parenting
time schedule as defendant had to commute an hour and fifteen
minutes to see Z.R. Plaintiff's relocation also eliminated
defendant's ability to share dinner with Z.R. during the school
week as contemplated in the JOD.
As for use of a shared parenting worksheet rather than a sole
parenting worksheet, Judge Light determined that it was unfair for
plaintiff to relocate, thereby reducing defendant's parenting time
with Z.R., and to receive an increase in child support under the
circumstances.
Plaintiff argues the judge abused his discretion by deviating
from the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines (Guidelines) in using
a shared parenting worksheet rather than a sole parenting worksheet
to calculate child support.
4 A-3609-15T2
A trial court's determination of a child support award is
reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Jacoby v. Jacoby,
427 N.J. Super. 109, 116 (App. Div. 2012)(citations omitted).
"When reviewing decisions granting or denying applications to
modify child support, we examine whether, given the facts, the
trial judge abused his or her discretion." J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J.
305, 325-26 (2013)(quoting Jacoby, supra, 427 N.J. Super. at 116).
We accord particular deference to judges in the Family Part
"because of [their] 'special jurisdiction and expertise' in family
matters." Harte v. Hand, 433 N.J. Super. 457, 461 (App. Div.
2013)(quoting Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998)). Unless
a child support award is "manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or
clearly contrary to reason or to other evidence, or the result of
whim or caprice," we will not disturb the award. Foust v. Glaser,
340 N.J. Super. 312, 315-16 (App. Div. 2001)(internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
The Guidelines are set forth in Appendix IX-A and IX-B to
Rule 5:6A. Rule 5:6A provides:
The guidelines set forth in Appendix IX of
these Rules shall be applied when an
application to establish or modify child
support is considered by the court. The
guidelines may be modified or disregarded by
the court only where good cause is shown. Good
cause shall consist of a) the considerations
set forth in Appendix IX-A, or the presence
of other relevant factors which may make the
5 A-3609-15T2
guidelines inapplicable or subject to
modification, and b) the fact that injustice
would result from the application of the
guidelines. In all cases, the determination
of good cause shall be within the sound
discretion of the court.
Both the Rule and Appendix accord family judges discretion
to deviate from the Guidelines. See Lozner v. Lozner, 388 N.J.
Super. 471, 480 (App. Div. 2006)(citing Ribner v. Ribner, 290 N.J.
Super. 66, 73 (App. Div. 1996)). "The Child Support Guidelines
are not cast in stone, but are in fact guidelines, subject to
deviation as a matter of fairness on a case-by-case basis."
Fichter v. Fichter, 444 N.J. Super. 205, 215 (Ch. Div. 2015).
Among the factors that may be considered by the family court when
establishing a child support award are: the "[s]tandard of living
and economic circumstances of each parent," "[a]ll sources of
income and assets of each parent," the "[e]arning ability of each
parent," and "[a]ny other factors the court may deem relevant."
N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(a).
Applying this standard of review, we find Judge Light's child
support award in this case was not an abuse of discretion. The
judge considered that plaintiff earned three times more than
defendant earned. Additionally, the judge weighed plaintiff's
relocating approximately one hour and fifteen minutes farther from
defendant under the "fairness" factor in determining the child
6 A-3609-15T2
support award. Here, the judge found that the use of a sole
parenting worksheet would result in a penalty to defendant.
Defendant wanted to exercise more parenting time with Z.R.
However, plaintiff's relocation made it impossible to abide by the
parenting schedule agreed upon in the JOD.
The judge's award was not arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable given the facts before the court. The judge exercised
his discretion and deviated from the Guidelines based upon the
disparity in the parties' income as well increased travel distance
required to enjoy parenting time with Z.R.
Affirmed.
7 A-3609-15T2