T.C. VS. N.M. (FD-12-2807-96, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2707-15T3
T.C.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
N.M.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Argued September 12, 2017 – Decided October 5, 2017
Before Judges Fisher and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex
County, Docket No. FD-12-2807-96.
Deborah A. Rose argued the cause for
appellant.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from the January 5, 2016 amended order
increasing his child support for his son who attends a county
community college and requiring him to contribute to the college
education of his daughter conditioned upon her completion of at
least five parental unification sessions, payable by defendant.
Defendant contends that Judge Lisa Vignuolo abused her discretion
by requiring him to continue to pay child support for his son, and
misapplied the Newburgh1 factors by requiring him to contribute to
his daughter's college education that he cannot afford and was
excluded from her college selection. We disagree, and affirm
substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Vignuolo in her
written decision dated December 18, 2015.
The parties, who were never married, are the parents of twin
children, born in 1996. Defendant moved for emancipation of the
children, and plaintiff cross-moved for contribution towards their
college expenses and recalculation of child support. After the
court ordered mediation was unsuccessful, a plenary hearing was
conducted.
At the time of the hearing, the twins were college sophomores;
the daughter, a residential student at an out-of-state public
university, and the son, a county community college student living
at home with plaintiff. Neither plaintiff nor the children sought
to have defendant contribute to any of the children's higher
educational expenses before or while they were incurred. Since
high school, the children have had a strained relationship with
1
Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 545 (1982)
2 A-2707-15T3
defendant, and did not consult him regarding their college
decisions. To pay for college, the daughter obtained student
loans and received the benefit of a $25,000 Parent PLUS Loan taken
out by plaintiff, and the son secured student loans in excess of
his tuition.
Based upon the parties' income, assets, and debts, as well
as defendant's raising of four other children with his wife who
did not work, Judge Vignuolo determined that the parties would not
be able to support their daughter's college expenses.
Nevertheless, since they both wanted their children to receive a
college education and the children were progressing academically,
the judge considered the Newburgh factors and found that they
should share the financial burden.
The judge recognized that based upon a pro rata income
comparison, defendant should be paying sixty-two percent of his
daughter's college tuition. However, considering plaintiff had
already taken out a $25,000 loan, defendant is raising four other
children, and defendant's input was not sought regarding his
daughter's college choice, defendant was required to contribute
the same amount as plaintiff. The judge ordered defendant to
apply for a $25,000 Parent PLUS Loan, and if unable to secure a
loan, he must pay $5000 per semester, limited to $10,000 per year,
and no more than $25,000 in total for his daughter's education.
3 A-2707-15T3
The judge noted that any expenses beyond this amount were the
daughter's sole responsibility because she should have considered
her parent's income limitations and matriculated to a less
expensive in-state public college.
As for the son's education, the judge found it was unnecessary
to order defendant to contribute to his schooling at that time
because his son's student loans more than covered his tuition.
Yet, since the son was still living with plaintiff and was no
longer having overnight visits with defendant, defendant's
obligation to pay child support for him remained. Applying the
child support guidelines, the judge determined that defendant's
child support should increase from $139 per week to $232 per week.
The judge, however, reduced this amount by twenty percent to
reflect defendant's financial situation as permitted in N.J.S.A.
2A:34-23.2 This appeal followed.
The scope of our review of the Family Part's orders is
limited. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411 (1998). We owe
substantial deference to the Family Part's findings of fact based
on adequate, substantial and credible evidence in the record,
understanding the court's special expertise in family matters.
Id. at 412-13; MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 191 N.J. 240, 253-54 (2007).
2
Defendant does not challenge the weekly $15 child support for
his daughter.
4 A-2707-15T3
We appreciate that parents' payment of their children's college
education is an expensive undertaking that requires significant
sacrifice. In this case, Judge Vignuolo's decision is supported
by adequate, substantial and credible evidence in the record. We
therefore affirm substantially for the reasons the judge expressed
in her thoughtful written decision.
Affirmed.
5 A-2707-15T3